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

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Fri, 6 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > From: Thomas Gleixner
> > Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 6:00 PM
> > 
> > On Fri, 6 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> > > x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them
> > >
> > > it doesn't make sense to mask/unmask a disabled irq when migrating it
> > > from offlined cpu to another, because it's not expected to handle any
> > > instance of it. Current mask/set_affinity/unmask steps may trigger
> > > unexpected instance on disabled irq which then simply bug on when
> > > there is no handler for it. One failing example is observed in Xen.
> > > Xen pvops
> > 
> > So there is no handler, why the heck is there an irq action?
> > 
> > 	  if (!irq_has_action(irq) ....
> > 	     	continue;
> > 
> > Should have caught an uninitialized interrupt. If Xen abuses interrupts that way,
> > then it rightfully explodes. And we do not fix it by magic somewhere else.
> 
> sorry that my bad description here. there does be a dummy handler registered
> on such irqs which simply throws out a BUG_ON when hit. I should just say such 
> injection is not expected instead of no handler. :-)

I don't think this patch is necessary anymore after the event channel
handling cleanup patches I have just sent to the list.
Could you please try the following two patches:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130468120032172&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130468178200468&w=2

and let me know if you still need this patch?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/