On 11/09/14 02:22, Yijing Wang wrote: > On 2014/9/10 20:36, David Vrabel wrote: >> On 05/09/14 11:09, Yijing Wang wrote: >>> Commit 0e4ccb150 added two __weak arch functions arch_msix_mask_irq() >>> and arch_msi_mask_irq() to fix a bug found when running xen in x86. >>> Introduced these two funcntions make MSI code complex. And mask/unmask >>> is the irq actions related to interrupt controller, should not use >>> weak arch functions to override mask/unmask interfaces. This patch >>> reverted commit 0e4ccb150 and export struct irq_chip msi_chip, modify >>> msi_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask() in xen init functions to fix this >>> bug for simplicity. Also this is preparation for using struct >>> msi_chip instead of weak arch MSI functions in all platforms. >> >> Acked-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> But I wonder if it would be better the Xen subsystem to provide its own >> struct irq_chip instead of adjusting the fields in the generic x86 one. > > Thanks! Currently, Xen and the bare x86 system only have the different irq_chip->irq_mask/irq_unmask. > So I chose to override the two ops of bare x86 irq_chip in xen. Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk has been tested it > ok in his platform, so I think we could use its own irq_chip for xen later if the difference become large. This sounds reasonable. David -- 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
