From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] x86: skip migrating IRQF_PER_CPU irq in fixup_irqs Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 15:28:37 +0100 Message-ID: <4DC81635020000780004072A@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <625BA99ED14B2D499DC4E29D8138F1505C8ED7F7E2@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20110506135828.GC5500@dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Thomas Gleixner , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: Kevin Tian , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Ian Campbell , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 09.05.11 at 14:39, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2011, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 02:43:36PM +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote: >> > because Xen event chip silently fails the set_affinity ops, and >> > logically IRQF_PER_CPU should be recognized here. >>=20 >> OK, so what if the set_affinity ops was implemented? >=20 > An interrupt chip which has a set_affinity op should not mark > something per cpu, which implies that the irq CANNOT be moved. Why shouldn't it be possible o use the same "chip" for both per-CPU and "normal" IRQs? Jan