Matthew Wilcox (on Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:44:43 -0600) wrote: >On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:39:10PM -0500, Jack Steiner wrote: >> For kexec, it is ESSENTIAL that all cpus except for the one doing >> the kexec be returned to the SAL slave loop. If this is not done, our >> chipset will misdirect IO interrupts on the newly exec'ed kernel. > >Could you do an IPI call to have CPU 0 do the kexec and have the CPU >that sent the IPI fall into the SAL slave loop instead? An IPI call will not work for MCA or INIT. Both of those drive all cpus into a state which has disabled interrupts. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|