Le Vendredi 10 Mars 2006 16:01, Dong, Eddie a écrit : > > I agree the current model has implicit priorities. > > > > But I am a little bit skeptical how the priority argument. As far as > > I understand, in Xen or in Linux first asked is first priority. Sorry, I was not clear enough. I agree event channel can mostly respect priority.
Except clock and IPI, I think Linux doesn't use priority. I can't force a card to have an higher priority than another card. Is it right ? [...] > These are all corner cases that we must consider as product, but at > early development we can take shortcut like using pseudo IRQ for event > channel here to let the whole project go ahead. And this is what we > talked at xensummit, people (Dan, Ian, Keir, Jun) all have no object for > potential issue concerns (for example mask/unmask support and priority > issue) and agree to take next. PPC guy also uses pseudo physical IRQ for > event channel as I remembered. Their community is much smaller than us > now and their development is also lagger than IA64. > This is why we need to clean up now as callback based event channel > approach has already been in production stage. Making a new mechanism > has high risk. You know we don't agree on these points. Writing them again won't make me change. Tristan. _______________________________________________ Xen-ia64-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
