Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:26:56 +0900 | From | Hidetoshi Seto <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |