From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752852AbYIJAuY (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:50:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751208AbYIJAuM (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:50:12 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:57879 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751125AbYIJAuL (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Sep 2008 20:50:11 -0400 Message-ID: <48C719C0.6060201@goop.org> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 17:50:08 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yinghai Lu CC: "Eric W. Biederman" , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: TARGET_CPUS in assign_irq_vector References: <48C6F913.1010509@goop.org> <86802c440809091554y349366fdu8e4ca59797ab4205@mail.gmail.com> <48C70ADC.8060004@goop.org> <86802c440809091726y4db8f85eg2d478b482862c5f9@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <86802c440809091726y4db8f85eg2d478b482862c5f9@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> Yinghai Lu wrote: >> >>> target_cpus is the cpus that could be possible to used to take vector >>> and process that irq. so at least it should be online. >>> >>> >> Would it be wrong to make it possible_cpu_mask? >> >> > it is wrong What happens if you online a new cpu and migrate the irq to it? Does it get allocated a new vector? I'm using create_irq() as a general irq and vector allocation mechanism for Xen interrupts. I'd like to be able to allocate a vector across all possible cpus so I can bind Xen event channels to vectors. Should I: 1) add a create_irq_cpus() which takes a cpu mask rather than defaulting to TARGET_CPUS, 2) modify struct genapic to insert by own target_cpus(), 3) give up because the idea is fundamentally ill-conceived, or 4) something else? Thanks, J