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

[Tian, Kevin]

> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [mailto:jeremy@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:45 AM
> 
> On 05/07/2011 12:04 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I'm not really sure why these can't just be an evtchn without an
> > associated IRQ since it doesn't really have any interrupt-like
> > semantics. Perhaps just a general desire to keep event channels
> > abstracted into the core Xen event subsystem with IRQs as the public
> > facing API? Jeremy?
> 
> It doesn't really need to be an irq.  The main reason was so that it would
> appear in /proc/interrupts so I could use the counter as a "number of times a
> spinlock was kicked" counter.  That could be exposed in some other way if
> being part of the interrupt infrastructure brings too much baggage with it.
> 

Perhaps we don't need an irq binding here. Just like a local APIC interrupt
source which only needs vector. Somehow the virq or vipi concept in Xen
context is similar.

Thanks
Kevin
¢éì®&Þ~º&¶¬–+-±éÝ¥Šw®žË±Êâmébžìdz¹Þ)í…æèw*jg¬±¨¶‰šŽŠÝj/êäz¹ÞŠà2ŠÞ¨è­Ú&¢)ß«a¶Úþø®G«éh®æj:+v‰¨Šwè†Ù>Wš±êÞiÛaxPjØm¶ŸÿÃ-»+ƒùdš_