[Xen-devel] RE: Question about pirq_guest_unmask

To:	"Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	[Xen-devel] RE: Question about pirq_guest_unmask
From:	"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:30:19 +0800
Cc:	xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:30:47 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AcZp9V0FZUN0iL4AS52OY0t1kPHi9gAABOfw
Thread-topic:	Question about pirq_guest_unmask

>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 2006年4月27日 20:19
>On 27 Apr 2006, at 13:16, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>
>> If that's the case, it's possible for one EOI issued early than
>> expected.
>> Does I miss anything important? Is it OK to change it to service
>> desired
>>
>> pirq only?
>
>Yes, that needs doing. Pick a new physdevop number though. If we
>backport the patch to 3.0.2 then we'll need to keep the old scan-all
>physdevop as a fallback and for backward compatibility.
>
>  -- Keir

OK, I'll add one together with moving physdevop to common. :-)

Thanks,
Kevin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] RE: Question about pirq_guest_unmask