From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933489Ab1ESQTW (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2011 12:19:22 -0400 Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:40107 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754532Ab1ESQTU (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 May 2011 12:19:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:18:54 -0400 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: "Tian, Kevin" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "JBeulich@novell.com" , Ian Campbell , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them Message-ID: <20110519161854.GA12940@dumpdata.com> References: <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8ED7F7E3@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8ED7F962@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8ED7FB9F@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8F008B68@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C9BBF8D40@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: acsinet21.oracle.com [141.146.126.237] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090209.4DD542FB.0109:SCFMA922111,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 01:08:07PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 19 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote: > > for [1/2] I think it's still necessary as it's meaningless to migrate a percpu type irq. > > However Stefano has sent out a cleanup patch for Xen percpu irqchip which uses > > nop mask/unmask hack borrowed from uv machine to work around the issue. As > > you suggested it's better to consolidate into the common place instead of scattering > > in different places. My view on this common logic is what [1/2] tries to address, is > > it correct? If yes, would you consider taking this patch? Stefano told me that his > > patches will go in in next merge window. So I think either you can take [1/2] now and > > then I'll do cleanup after Stefano's patch is in, or I can rebase my [1/2] after Stefano's > > patch to clean both xen and uv parts. > > Actually I think Kevin's generic patch is better too. > If you ack it I'll remove my patch right away from the queue (maybe I > should remove it anyway?). I dropped your patch.