From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30 of 38] xen: implement io_apic_ops
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:30:07 -0800
Message-ID: <49260F1F.4070107@zytor.com>
References: <patchbomb.1226603398@abulafia.goop.org> <d103c0da2fa147ac31af.1226603428@abulafia.goop.org> <20081120093506.GB6885@elte.hu> <492597B9.8070506@goop.org> <20081120192218.GF3955@elte.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1756139AbYKUBdw@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081120192218.GF3955@elte.hu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> it certainly looks thin enough to me although i'm really not sure we 
> want to virtualize at the IO-APIC level. Peter, what's your 
> opinion/preference?
> 

Not having studied the Xen code in detail, but my assumption would be
that we should allocate this at the IRQ chip level rather than violating
the IO-APIC code.  I also (as previously discussed) really want to see a
dynamic allocator for IRQ numbers like PowerPC already has.

	-hpa