From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932685Ab0CJS2S (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:28:18 -0500 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:13138 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932655Ab0CJS2R (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:28:17 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.49,615,1262581200"; d="scan'208";a="87524920" Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into struct irq_chip. From: Ian Campbell To: "Eric W. Biederman" CC: Yinghai Lu , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , "x86@kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" In-Reply-To: References: <1268218524.11737.68547.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1268218559-26784-2-git-send-email-ijc@hellion.org.uk> <86802c441003100406t70dd854fx491f0ee9a6fce62b@mail.gmail.com> <1268225473.11737.69196.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <1268243447.11737.70807.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc. Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:28:11 +0000 Message-ID: <1268245691.11261.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 18:15 +0000, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ian Campbell writes: > > > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:42 +0000, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > >> > >> Ian Xen in this sense is simply not x86. irq_cfg is not acpi or > >> ioapic or anything but x86 specific. It has everything to do with > >> having a per cpu vector table of 256 entries and architecturally > >> receiving a vector number when an interrupt is fired. > >> > >> It totally makes sense for Xen to do something different because > >> architecturally it has a completely different irq subsystem. > > > > OK, so that sounds like you would like the same patchset but without the > > irq_cfg renaming? or potentially with renaming to x86_blah instead (I'll > > rework to your preference). > > Currently the renaming really makes it unclear what you are doing and for > some reason the description of the renaming rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry, I started off a bit confused and then totally misunderstood what related to what and I think that came through in the description. I'll respin without the first patch. Ian.