search for: irq_type_iosapic_level

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