Re: [patch 0/4] XEN: Interrupt cleanups

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com>]

On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 16:20 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 04:39:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 14:55 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > So, with the fixes to 2/4 (irq_move_irq think from yesterday) and 4/4
> > > > > (below), the entire series is:
> > > > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Cool. So what's the best way to proceed ? That code is not yet in
> > > > linus tree, right ?
> > > 
> > > Correct.
> > > 
> > > > So I guess the best way is that I add the core changes to a rc-4 based
> > > > branch and you can pull it in and apply the whole xen stuff to your
> > > > own tree.
> > > 
> > > My existing cleanup patches are in Konrad's tree (which is in linux-next
> > > etc) so that probably makes most sense as a home for this series. So
> > > unless Konrad has any objections I think it makes sense to pull your
> > > core changes into that branch and then apply your Xen bits on top.
> 
> Ok. Pulled in these patches and stuck Ack-ed by Ian on them.
> > > 
> > > Konrad's branch with my stuff is:
> > >   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git stable/irq.rework
> > > 
> > > Konrad, this thread starts at <20110205200108.921707839@linutronix.de>
> > > == http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1096437
> > > 
> > > > I base my pending patches on top of that so it wont be any problem
> > > > when merging the stuff together in next or linus later.
> > > 
> > > I don't think there will be much trouble with overlap between these and
> > > any Xen events.c changes for the next merge window but what you suggest
> > > should remove the risk.
> > 
> > Yes, and please talk to me next time before you hack around in the
> > guts of the interrupt code. I noticed just because I was skimming
> > -next, and that really conflicts with major cleanups I'm doing. If
> > there is a shortcoming in the generic code, then let me know.
> 
> <scratches his head> The rework was in Xen code not in generic, and
> the only generic changes that are in there ..  are your code?

I think Thomas was referring to the "unmask because the core didn't do
it for us" hack I added a while back which he is replacing with
IRQF_FORCE_RESUME.

Ian.

> 
> This is what I've in the stable/irq.rework and also in the linux-next
> branch. Please tell me if I messed up.
> 
> Ian Campbell (7):
>       xen: handled remapped IRQs when enabling a pcifront PCI device.
>       xen:events: move find_unbound_irq inside CONFIG_PCI_MSI
>       xen: events: add xen_allocate_irq_{dynamic, gsi} and xen_free_irq
>       xen: events: allocate GSIs and dynamic IRQs from separate IRQ ranges.
>       xen: events: do not free legacy IRQs
>       xen: Fix compile error introduced by "switch to new irq_chip functions"
>       xen/timer: Missing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND in timer code broke suspend.
> 
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk (2):
>       xen/irq: Cleanup the find_unbound_irq
>       xen/irq: Don't fall over when nr_irqs_gsi > nr_irqs.
> 
> Thomas Gleixner (3):
>       xen: Remove stale irq_chip.end
>       xen: Switch to new irq_chip functions
>       genirq: Add IRQF_FORCE_RESUME
> 
> > 
> > Core change is in 
> > 
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git irq/for-xen
> 
> <nods> Pulled that in my branch.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > 	tglx
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/