From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753085AbYIJIkw (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:40:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751447AbYIJIko (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:40:44 -0400 Received: from mail-gx0-f16.google.com ([209.85.217.16]:53613 "EHLO mail-gx0-f16.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751288AbYIJIkn (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:40:43 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=f7fH5R9/aWlf7d+YlreJzC9CM7UvzMHVl/dNpjlKQ5cVV3UcUVOZc4Y4KVuYb3tAb4 EXKfdTkfQx04czXmC+pokiPX9+ok0dkblukOuvC4rKqNzLwGCJb6hm45icOQMeg+23hg P+BFvYXMDA1GkDn3tBsiOMx1b/Beg9uk6etng= Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:40:39 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: io-apic - get rid of __DO_ACTION macro Message-ID: <20080910084039.GA7184@lenovo> References: <20080909184615.GA7303@lenovo> <86802c440809091313l6b3e1f48x6e3b5cd0b948ccf9@mail.gmail.com> <86802c440809092322w363cc9dbt5eb172d5c80a6adc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86802c440809092322w363cc9dbt5eb172d5c80a6adc@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Yinghai Lu - Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 11:22:37PM -0700] | On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: | > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Yinghai Lu wrote: | > ... | >> | >> hope we can keep using MACRO.. | >> | >> YH | >> | > | > Btw, Yinghai, what does it mean? To not touch this macro at all? | > Or you mean about implementation issue (ie the design itself)? | | do not touch this macro... and may revisit after 2.6.28 | | YH | could you please be more concrete? What will happen with kernel after 2.6.28 that make it (this macro) possible to be touched? The only problem I see now is that binary operation error you pointed (thanks!) but nothing else! actually this mask arguments are being applied in not that obvious way indeed but I'm not sure if it'll be better to add additional args signaling that a mask should be applied. If _you_ are planning to continue playing with APIC/IO-APIC 'till 2.6.28 - just say that and I could stop any attempts. - Cyrill -