Re: 4.0/4.1 requests

[Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com>]

On 08/09/2011 11:48, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:

>>> Hi Keir,
>>> 
>>> without the old IO-APIC part addressed, I wonder whether we should
>>> really have the backport of 23805:7048810180de ("IRQ: manually EOI
>>> migrating line interrupts") in both trees.
>> It does fix a real bug. Perhaps Andrew could hack up a patch to make it
>> dependent on IO-APIC version?
> Now that I am not racing against a release deadline, this is a
> possibility.  It probably means falling through to the "fake an EOI for
> line level interrupt code", as the Status bit is RO in the IO-APIC (The
> IRR bit is RW but both need updating)

Falling back to the old behaviour would be acceptable. I think we're talking
only very old systems here.

> Does anyone know which revision of the IO-APIC was the first with an EOI
> register?

Jan's patches which use the IOAPIC EOI register have a version check. You
can copy that.

 -- Keir

> If not, I think I have some document trawling to do.