On Wed, Oct 07 2020 at 15:23, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-10-07 at 16:05 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 07 2020 at 14:08, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> > On 7 October 2020 13:59:00 BST, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Oct 07 2020 at 08:48, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> > > > To fix *that* case, we really do need the whole series giving us per-
>> > > > domain restricted affinity, and to use it for those MSIs/IOAPICs that
>> > > > the IRQ remapping doesn't cover.
>> > >
>> > > Which do not exist today.
>> >
>> > Sure. But at patch 10/13 into this particular patch series, it *does*
>> > exist.
>>
>> As I told you before: Your ordering is wrong. We do not introduce bugs
>> first and then fix them later ....
>
> I didn't introduce that bug; it's been there for years. Fixing it
> properly requires per-irqdomain affinity limits.
>
> There's a cute little TODO at least in the Intel irq-remapping driver,
> noting that we should probably check if there are any IOAPICs that
> aren't in the scope of any DRHD at all. But that's all.
So someone forgot to remove the cute little TODO when this was added:
if (parse_ioapics_under_ir()) {
pr_info("Not enabling interrupt remapping\n");
goto error;
}
Thanks,
tglx
