On 07/14/2012 03:55 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
The only way we can avoid that, is that we get a hint from the
underlying irq chip/ handler setup with an extra flag to tell the
core, that it's safe to avoid the ONESHOT/finalize magic.
So now it took a full month of ignorance to come up with the
On 2012-07-14 04:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
At the same time, I do wonder if maybe MSI + IRQF_ONESHOT couldn't be
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-07-14 04:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
This patch here is a workaround to unbreak devices assignment in 3.5
after the IRQ layer changes without regressing noticeable /wrt overhead.
Yeah, workaround and regression are the proper marketing buzzwords to
On 2012-07-14 13:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-07-14 04:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
This patch here is a workaround to unbreak devices assignment in 3.5
after the IRQ layer changes without regressing noticeable /wrt overhead.
Yeah, workaround and
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-07-14 13:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-07-14 04:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
This patch here is a workaround to unbreak devices assignment in 3.5
after the IRQ layer changes without regressing
On 2012-07-14 14:33, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-07-14 13:16, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2012, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-07-14 04:25, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
This patch here is a workaround to unbreak devices assignment in 3.5
after the IRQ
Missing diffstat. Please please *please* always make sure you have
diffstats, because I really want to know that what I'm pulling matches
what you *think* that I'm pulling. And the diffstat isn't just for me
- it hopefully really makes you look at the whole this is what I'm
asking Linus to pull
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Missing diffstat. Please please *please* always make sure you have
diffstats, because I really want to know that what I'm pulling matches
what you *think* that I'm pulling. And the diffstat isn't just for me
-
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
At the same time, I do wonder if maybe MSI + IRQF_ONESHOT couldn't be
improved. The fact that the KVM people think that the extra overhead
of IRQF_ONESHOT is a bad
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
We already discussed to let the irq chip (in this case MSI) tell the
core that it does not need the extra oneshot handling. That way the
code which requests an threaded irq with the NULL primary handler
works on both
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Thomas Gleixner t...@linutronix.de wrote:
We already discussed to let the irq chip (in this case MSI) tell the
core that it does not need the extra oneshot handling. That way the
code which requests an threaded
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Linus Torvalds
torva...@linux-foundation.org wrote:
At the same time, I do wonder if maybe MSI + IRQF_ONESHOT couldn't be
improved. The fact that the KVM people think
Linus, please pull a couple of KVM fixes from:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/virt/kvm/kvm.git master
One is an adjustment for an irq layer change that affected device
assignment, the other a one-liner ppc fix.
Alex Williamson
13 matches
Mail list logo
