Displaying 15 results from an estimated 15 matches for "irq_type_iosapic_level".
2015 Dec 30
0
[PATCH 03/34] ia64: rename nop->iosapic_nop
...+415,7 @@ iosapic_unmask_level_irq (struct irq_data *data)
#define iosapic_shutdown_level_irq mask_irq
#define iosapic_enable_level_irq unmask_irq
#define iosapic_disable_level_irq mask_irq
-#define iosapic_ack_level_irq nop
+#define iosapic_ack_level_irq iosapic_nop
static struct irq_chip irq_type_iosapic_level = {
.name = "IO-SAPIC-level",
@@ -453,7 +453,7 @@ iosapic_ack_edge_irq (struct irq_data *data)
}
#define iosapic_enable_edge_irq unmask_irq
-#define iosapic_disable_edge_irq nop
+#define iosapic_disable_edge_irq iosapic_nop
static struct irq_chip irq_type_iosapic_edge = {
.n...
2008 Apr 30
16
[PATCH 00/15] ia64/pv_ops take 5
Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the
framework for virtualization support.
Now all the comments so far have been addressed, but only a few exceptions.
On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and
eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too.
Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on
ia64/pv_ops.
2008 Apr 30
16
[PATCH 00/15] ia64/pv_ops take 5
Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the
framework for virtualization support.
Now all the comments so far have been addressed, but only a few exceptions.
On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and
eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too.
Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on
ia64/pv_ops.
2008 Apr 09
15
[PATCH 00/15] RFC: ia64/pv_ops take 4
Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the
framework for virtualization support.
Please review and comments.
On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and
eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too.
Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on
ia64/pv_ops. Currently only ia64/xen pv_ops implementation
2008 Apr 09
15
[PATCH 00/15] RFC: ia64/pv_ops take 4
Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the
framework for virtualization support.
Please review and comments.
On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and
eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too.
Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on
ia64/pv_ops. Currently only ia64/xen pv_ops implementation
2008 May 19
18
[PATCH 00/17] ia64/pv_ops take 6
Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the
framework for virtualization support.
Changes from take 5 are rebased to Linux 2.6.26-rc3,
bug fix ivt.S paravirtualization and multi entry point support.
I believe these patches can be applied to the linux ia64 repository.
On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and
eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops
2008 May 19
18
[PATCH 00/17] ia64/pv_ops take 6
Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the
framework for virtualization support.
Changes from take 5 are rebased to Linux 2.6.26-rc3,
bug fix ivt.S paravirtualization and multi entry point support.
I believe these patches can be applied to the linux ia64 repository.
On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and
eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops
2015 Dec 30
46
[PATCH 00/34] arch: barrier cleanup + __smp_XXX barriers for virt
This is really trying to cleanup some virt code, as suggested by Peter, who
said
> You could of course go fix that instead of mutilating things into
> sort-of functional state.
This work is needed for virtio, so it's probably easiest to
merge it through my tree - is this fine by everyone?
Arnd, if you agree, could you ack this please?
Note to arch maintainers: please don't
2015 Dec 30
46
[PATCH 00/34] arch: barrier cleanup + __smp_XXX barriers for virt
This is really trying to cleanup some virt code, as suggested by Peter, who
said
> You could of course go fix that instead of mutilating things into
> sort-of functional state.
This work is needed for virtio, so it's probably easiest to
merge it through my tree - is this fine by everyone?
Arnd, if you agree, could you ack this please?
Note to arch maintainers: please don't
2016 Jan 10
48
[PATCH v3 00/41] arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt
Changes since v2:
- extended checkpatch tests for barriers, and added patches
teaching it to warn about incorrect usage of barriers
(__smp_xxx barriers are for use by asm-generic code only),
should help prevent misuse by arch code
to address comments by Russell King
- patched more instances of xen to use virt_ barriers
as suggested by Stefano Stabellini
- implemented a 2 byte xchg on sh
2016 Jan 10
48
[PATCH v3 00/41] arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt
Changes since v2:
- extended checkpatch tests for barriers, and added patches
teaching it to warn about incorrect usage of barriers
(__smp_xxx barriers are for use by asm-generic code only),
should help prevent misuse by arch code
to address comments by Russell King
- patched more instances of xen to use virt_ barriers
as suggested by Stefano Stabellini
- implemented a 2 byte xchg on sh
2015 Dec 31
54
[PATCH v2 00/34] arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt
Changes since v1:
- replaced my asm-generic patch with an equivalent patch already in tip
- add wrappers with virt_ prefix for better code annotation,
as suggested by David Miller
- dropped XXX in patch names as this makes vger choke, Cc all relevant
mailing lists on all patches (not personal email, as the list becomes
too long then)
I parked this in vhost tree for now, but the
2015 Dec 31
54
[PATCH v2 00/34] arch: barrier cleanup + barriers for virt
Changes since v1:
- replaced my asm-generic patch with an equivalent patch already in tip
- add wrappers with virt_ prefix for better code annotation,
as suggested by David Miller
- dropped XXX in patch names as this makes vger choke, Cc all relevant
mailing lists on all patches (not personal email, as the list becomes
too long then)
I parked this in vhost tree for now, but the
2008 Mar 05
51
[PATCH 00/50] ia64/xen take 3: ia64/xen domU paravirtualization
Hi. This patchset implements xen/ia64 domU support.
Qing He and Eddie Dong also has been woring on pv_ops so that
I want to discuss before going further and avoid duplicated work.
I suppose that Eddie will also post his own patch. So reviewing both
patches, we can reach to better pv_ops interface.
- I didn't changed the ia64 intrinsic paravirtulization abi from
the last post. Presumably it
2008 Mar 05
51
[PATCH 00/50] ia64/xen take 3: ia64/xen domU paravirtualization
Hi. This patchset implements xen/ia64 domU support.
Qing He and Eddie Dong also has been woring on pv_ops so that
I want to discuss before going further and avoid duplicated work.
I suppose that Eddie will also post his own patch. So reviewing both
patches, we can reach to better pv_ops interface.
- I didn't changed the ia64 intrinsic paravirtulization abi from
the last post. Presumably it