From: Chris Torek <chris.torek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:06:57 -0600 > Yes, this one is in. I did (and still do) suspect a hypervisor > bug. I think in this case the problem is that this test is not > sufficent for the "two vnets on one vswitch" case, though, > because this results in the desc->status not having > IRQ_INPROGRESS set on the "other" vnet that gets a double > interrupt. You can know if it's this hypervisor bug by simply updating your hypervisor to the latest version available. > I'm also wondering now if it has something to do with the code we > added that attempts to redistribute interrupts, so that in the case > of a double interrupt, the second one goes to a different CPU > than the CPU already handling the first one. Although we > should still see IRQ_INPROGRESS then... If you're making local changes on that scale, it's irresponsible to make mention of them when reporting a bug you want this list to look at :-( -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
