From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "tiejun.chen" <tiejun.chen@windriver.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:03:56 +0000
Subject: Re: [v1][PATCH 1/1] KVM: PPC: disable preemption when using hard_irq_disable()
Message-Id: <51E3669C.7050206@windriver.com>
List-Id: <kvm-ppc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <1373651433.8183.276@snotra>  <1373670311.19894.213.camel@pasglop> <51E35C50.6050901@windriver.com> <1373856444.19894.323.camel@pasglop>
In-Reply-To: <1373856444.19894.323.camel@pasglop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, "<kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>" <kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org>, "<kvm@vger.kernel.org> list" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>

On 07/15/2013 10:47 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 10:20 +0800, tiejun.chen wrote:
>> What about SOFT_IRQ_DISABLE? This is close to name
>> hard_irq_disable() :) And
>> then remove all DISABLE_INTS as well?
>
> Or RECONCILE_IRQ_STATE...

But sounds this doesn't imply this key point that the soft-irq is always 
disabled here :)

And as I understand, the irq state is always needed to be reconciled when we 
disable soft irq, right?

Tiejun