RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86: don't unmask disabled irqs when migrating them

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>]

On Thu, 19 May 2011, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> for [1/2] I think it's still necessary as it's meaningless to migrate a percpu type irq.
> However Stefano has sent out a cleanup patch for Xen percpu irqchip which uses
> nop mask/unmask hack borrowed from uv machine to work around the issue. As
> you suggested it's better to consolidate into the common place instead of scattering
> in different places. My view on this common logic is what [1/2] tries to address, is
> it correct? If yes, would you consider taking this patch? Stefano told me that his
> patches will go in in next merge window. So I think either you can take [1/2] now and
> then I'll do cleanup after Stefano's patch is in, or I can rebase my [1/2] after Stefano's
> patch to clean both xen and uv parts. 

Actually I think Kevin's generic patch is better too.
If you ack it I'll remove my patch right away from the queue (maybe I
should remove it anyway?).
Kevin probably needs to write a cleanup patch to remove the equivalent
hack from the uv_irq.