Re: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

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.