From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from m12-13.163.com ([220.181.12.13]:49338 "EHLO m12-13.163.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727753AbeIFOuQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2018 10:50:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Affinity managed interrupts vs non-managed interrupts To: Thomas Gleixner , Kashyap Desai Cc: Ming Lei , Sumit Saxena , Ming Lei , Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Shivasharan Srikanteshwara , linux-block , Dou Liyang References: <20180829084618.GA24765@ming.t460p> <300d6fef733ca76ced581f8c6304bac6@mail.gmail.com> <615d78004495aebc53807156d04d988c@mail.gmail.com> <486f94a563d63c4779498fe8829a546c@mail.gmail.com> <602cee6381b9f435a938bbaf852d07f9@mail.gmail.com> <66256272c020be186becdd7a3f049302@mail.gmail.com> From: Dou Liyang Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 18:14:50 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk; format=flowed Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, At 09/05/2018 06:38 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Oh well. This was not intended to magically provide the solution you want > to have. It merily changed the behaviour of the managed interrupt > selection, which is a valid thing to do independent of the stuff you want > to see. > Thank you for clarifying it, I will send the patch independently. > As I said that needs more thought and I really can't tell when I have a > time slot to look at that. > In this period, I am willing to be a volunteer to try to do that you said in the previous reply. May I? Thanks dou