From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into struct irq_chip.
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:27:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B97E4A7.6060501@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1iq94gjkf.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On 03/10/2010 09:42 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> All we need between the Xen and the rest of x86 is a convention
> so that we never manage the same irqs. At least for domU we are
> in an either/or situation so I don't see even that being a problem.
>
Dom0 too. This is part of the work implementing what we discussed a
while back - Xen now completely owns the local and IO apics, so dom0
only deals with Xen, not the hardware. Xen has a completely different
interrupt setup path, but at least it isn't a mishmash of Xen stuff and
native APIC stuff.
J
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into struct irq_chip.
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:27:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B97E4A7.6060501@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1iq94gjkf.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
On 03/10/2010 09:42 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> All we need between the Xen and the rest of x86 is a convention
> so that we never manage the same irqs. At least for domU we are
> in an either/or situation so I don't see even that being a problem.
>
Dom0 too. This is part of the work implementing what we discussed a
while back - Xen now completely owns the local and IO apics, so dom0
only deals with Xen, not the hardware. Xen has a completely different
interrupt setup path, but at least it isn't a mishmash of Xen stuff and
native APIC stuff.
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-10 18:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 76+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-03 3:31 x86: fix race in create_irq_nr on irq_desc Brandon Philips
2010-02-03 10:20 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-02-03 17:42 ` Brandon Philips
2010-02-03 19:31 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-02-04 3:17 ` Brandon Philips
2010-02-05 8:45 ` [PATCH] x86: keep chip_data in create_irq_nr Yinghai Lu
2010-02-05 21:05 ` Brandon Philips
2010-02-05 21:42 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-05 21:09 ` [PATCH] x86: keep chip_data in create_irq_nr and destroy_irq Brandon Philips
2010-02-05 22:44 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-02-05 22:55 ` Brandon Philips
2010-02-06 0:06 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-02-06 0:18 ` [PATCH v2] " Brandon Philips
2010-02-06 6:42 ` [PATCH v3] " Brandon Philips
2010-02-06 7:16 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-02-06 20:05 ` Brandon Philips
2010-02-07 21:02 ` [PATCH v4] " Brandon Philips
2010-02-19 6:06 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86, irq: Keep " tip-bot for Brandon Philips
2010-02-26 10:26 ` [tip:x86/irq] x86: apic: Fix mismerge, add arch_probe_nr_irqs() again tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2010-02-26 18:19 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-02-27 9:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-02-27 9:37 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-02-27 9:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-02-27 10:12 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-01 11:22 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-01 18:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-01 21:44 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-01 21:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-02 8:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-03-10 10:55 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 10:55 ` [PATCH] x86: namespace some I/O APIC related structures and functions ijc
2010-03-10 17:07 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 10:55 ` [PATCH] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into struct irq_chip ijc
2010-03-10 10:55 ` ijc
2010-03-10 11:00 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 11:00 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 17:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 17:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 17:41 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 17:41 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 18:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 18:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 12:06 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-10 12:06 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-10 12:51 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 12:51 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 17:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 17:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 17:50 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 17:50 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 18:15 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 18:15 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 18:28 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 18:28 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-10 18:27 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2010-03-10 18:27 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-03-10 18:59 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-10 18:59 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-10 19:15 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 19:15 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-10 22:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-03-10 22:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2010-03-10 10:55 ` [PATCH] x86: irq_desc->chip_data is always correct whether or not SPARSE_IRQ is enabled ijc
2010-03-01 22:01 ` [tip:x86/irq] x86: apic: Fix mismerge, add arch_probe_nr_irqs() again Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-02-27 12:57 ` [tip:x86/apic] " tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2010-02-03 10:32 ` x86: fix race in create_irq_nr on irq_desc Yinghai Lu
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-03-12 9:44 [GITPULL+PATCH 0/2] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into struct irq_chip Ian Campbell
2010-03-12 9:45 ` [PATCH] " Ian Campbell
2010-03-12 9:45 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-12 19:26 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-12 19:26 ` Yinghai Lu
2010-03-13 0:29 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-13 0:29 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-16 8:50 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-16 8:50 ` Ian Campbell
2010-03-16 9:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2010-03-16 9:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B97E4A7.6060501@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.