From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757293AbZFRTOy (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:14:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753877AbZFRTOp (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:14:45 -0400 Received: from claw.goop.org ([74.207.240.146]:38001 "EHLO claw.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752638AbZFRTOp (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:14:45 -0400 Message-ID: <4A3A9220.4070807@goop.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:14:40 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Len Brown CC: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Eric W. Biederman" , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Xen-devel Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC References: <4A329CF8.4050502@goop.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/18/09 09:08, Len Brown wrote: >> In principle, the local APIC and the I/O APIC are distinct (but related) >> components, which can be independently present. >> > > bzzzzt, but thanks for playing:-) > Perhaps I should have expressed that a bit more clearly: you could, if mad, build a machine with I/O APICs and some other mechanism for delivering the interrupts to CPUs. In practice, I doubt anyone ever has, or ever would. The only actual exception I know of is Xen's replacement of the physical local APIC with a paravirtualized interrupt interface. J From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:14:40 -0700 Message-ID: <4A3A9220.4070807@goop.org> References: <4A329CF8.4050502@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Len Brown Cc: Xen-devel , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar , "Eric W. Biederman" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 06/18/09 09:08, Len Brown wrote: >> In principle, the local APIC and the I/O APIC are distinct (but related) >> components, which can be independently present. >> > > bzzzzt, but thanks for playing:-) > Perhaps I should have expressed that a bit more clearly: you could, if mad, build a machine with I/O APICs and some other mechanism for delivering the interrupts to CPUs. In practice, I doubt anyone ever has, or ever would. The only actual exception I know of is Xen's replacement of the physical local APIC with a paravirtualized interrupt interface. J