From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fixes for 3.5-rc6 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:36:50 +0300 Message-ID: <5003FCD2.80200@redhat.com> References: <4FFEBB39.8090308@redhat.com> <500118F1.8060300@web.de> <500156B3.6040205@web.de> <50016C44.5000607@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , Marcelo Tosatti , KVM list To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: In-Reply-To: <50016C44.5000607@web.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 07/14/2012 03:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> The only way we can avoid that, is that we get a hint from the >>> underlying irq chip/ handler setup with an extra flag to tell the >>> core, that it's safe to avoid the ONESHOT/finalize magic. >> >> So now it took a full month of ignorance to come up with the >> mindboggling solution of working around the core change with a private >> hack instead of sitting down and doing what was said to be the correct >> solution. > > We sat down and tried to avoid the core problem of our use case: IRQ > threading. That we now have to fall back to something else is > unfortunate and was surely not planned. > > However, if you push your patch for 3.5, I'm sure Avi will happily drop > the disliked workaround and replace it with ordinary IRQF_ONESHOT tagging. Fine by me, of course, but is mucking around in the irq layer something we want to do in -rc7? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function