lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Dec]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/4] x86, vtd: fix the vt-d fault handling irq migration in the x2apic mode
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:22:27PM -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Subject: x86, vtd: fix the vt-d fault handling irq migration in the x2apic mode
>
> In x2apic mode, we need to set the upper address register of the fault
> handling interrupt register of the vt-d hardware. Without this
> irq migration of the vt-d fault handling interrupt is broken.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org [v2.6.32+]
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> Index: tip/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tip.orig/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> +++ tip/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> @@ -3367,6 +3367,8 @@ dmar_msi_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d
> msg.data |= MSI_DATA_VECTOR(cfg->vector);
> msg.address_lo &= ~MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID_MASK;
> msg.address_lo |= MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID(dest);
> + if (x2apic_mode)
> + msg.address_hi = MSI_ADDR_BASE_HI | MSI_ADDR_EXT_DEST_ID(dest);

Is it necessary to test x2apic_mode here? It looks like
MSI_ADDR_EXT_DEST_ID() gives you everything above the low 8
bits of the APIC ID. If those bits are always zero except in
x2apic_mode, we might not need the test.

Does the ia64 dmar_msi_set_affinity() need the same fix?

Why do we have both x2apic_enabled() and x2apic_mode? They
seem sort of redundant. (Not related to this patch, of course.)

Bjorn


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-12-01 16:17    [W:0.269 / U:0.152 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site