[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v2] x86/i8259: do not assume interrupts always target CPU0
- To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 14:08:42 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=bfvGQFI1qnwP5ZqYU9NNsF2DQG1OqoIoiobGJYLGaI4=; b=VplEni5DwqQj2wsHojks/bS8SX3DhoRngFi0j63zynL/sN5errztq6hpPhPIIUxdaCODpGr/5Hw5y/cPq6CoYBvSmVi9BX38z7CaZ3CSTwNklN4gFzvMad5E7vPaU5L0S4SksKTfRpTe9dbUcYdlHbee46bJTBpDSTu1eGLGEU3dhbEvRfeWS1cq1Aynrlz+3vZeryxOYV8OCXirvmnb0/CBbWdaZ/Dbz8sUYeXx7kyfQhezY4uiUnD3b5t52oLHtfnwGyo/++rpjxXhiu9g5G+gFOWgLPMKtGNejced3GfGaOGlmAH9r/brC/8IpmGauFGaVG2ltUb0++eyF++SOQ==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Btf8EcXTGLrv2g06U/W+lNV714+G0oVsb7oX21k41NNsdVCVhd/BqPNWAOxWYMqaMLRVvgTDioY87sYI478EMFLeGdT/yQLJ3iHTW3KXjsUuywx9fY7yAjaU7hLO7e4sTav5EYIfyjTcCnrnenvqrC6MvOVs+F9bRf8lf92WKTVyin6uLCc1AQe1WRg6HNxkjrj4o7rJ9He3cMbfdfthZUmKdCpooj60KK1qSVPWz4xts886fvshwE7Oq8JqpsuOz65qqLiip8OpEKI5WSnWexa8DI36fmQEDXBVtiIUQ7nlk3AOEeJzBT4Gnuty/PjG9Tmty+xRuuc8mymJ0vF4/g==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 12:08:51 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 24.10.2023 14:06, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 24.10.2023 13:36, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> What is your reasoning for wanting the smp_processor_id() check in
>> the caller rather than bogus_8259A_irq()? It does seem fine to me to
>> do such check in bogus_8259A_irq(), as whether the IRQ is bogus also
>> depends on whether it fired on the BSP or any of the APs.
>
> bogus_8259A_irq() shouldn't be concerned about the CPU it runs on; it
> should solely deal with 8259A aspects.
Or to put it differently: The function is supposed to tell whether an
IRQ is bogus from the pov of the PIC. The caller decides under what
conditions to actually invoke this checking.
Jan
|
