lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [1/28] x86: Fix panic with interrupts off (needed for MCE)
Andi Kleen wrote:
> I put the reboot vector into the highest priority bucket
> of the APIC vectors and moved the 64bit UV_BAU message
> down instead into the next lower priority.

I had forgotten to point this...

> @@ -88,12 +88,14 @@
> #define THERMAL_APIC_VECTOR 0xfa
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> -/* 0xf8 - 0xf9 : free */
> +/* 0xf9 : free */
> #else
> # define THRESHOLD_APIC_VECTOR 0xf9
> -# define UV_BAU_MESSAGE 0xf8
> #endif
>
> +#define REBOOT_VECTOR 0xf8
> +
> +
> /* f0-f7 used for spreading out TLB flushes: */
> #define INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_END 0xf7
> #define INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_START 0xf0
> @@ -116,6 +118,8 @@
> */
> #define GENERIC_INTERRUPT_VECTOR 0xed
>
> +#define UV_BAU_MESSAGE 0xec
> +
> /*
> * First APIC vector available to drivers: (vectors 0x30-0xee) we
> * start at 0x31(0x41) to spread out vectors evenly between priority

Does this change (=pulling down the priority of UV_BAU_VECTOR) not impact
users of the UV_BAU_MESSAGE?

I can see why REBOOT_VECTOR need to be highest priority.
Maybe you could pull down THERMAL_APIC_VECTOR/THRESHOLD_APIC_VECTOR
instead. Why you choose UV_BAU_MESSAGE?


Thanks,
H.Seto



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-20 02:35    [W:0.182 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site