From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ross Lagerwall Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86: Fixup IRQs when CPUs go down during shutdown Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:38:01 +0000 Message-ID: <566947F9.9030607@citrix.com> References: <1449237700-10602-1-git-send-email-ross.lagerwall@citrix.com> <5661B44A02000078000BC247@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <56694417.5050307@citrix.com> <566953B502000078000BDF61@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <566953B502000078000BDF61@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 12/10/2015 09:28 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 10.12.15 at 10:21, wrote: >> On 12/04/2015 02:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 04.12.15 at 15:01, wrote: >>>> Commit fc0c3fa2ad5c ("x86/IO-APIC: fix setup of Xen internally used IRQs >>>> (take 2)") introduced a regression on some hardware where Xen would hang >>>> during shutdown, repeating the following message: >>>> APIC error on CPU0: 08(08), Receive accept error >>>> >>>> This appears to be because an interrupt (in this case from the serial >>>> console) destined for a CPU other than the boot CPU is left unhandled so >>>> an APIC error on CPU 0 is generated instead. >>>> >>>> To fix this, before taking down the non-boot CPUs, call fixup_irqs() >>>> with a CPU mask of only the boot CPU to reset the IRQ affinities >>>> correctly. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ross Lagerwall >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich >> >> Is this going to go onto staging? > > I really was waiting for some kind of response to > >>> ... I really would have wanted the split of the functions to be >>> undone too (renaming the bool_t function parameter suitably). > > in the mail that you just replied to (but stripped those parts off). > Oh, given the Reviewed-by tag, I thought you weren't expecting a response. Anyway, I prefer the version split into two functions since it is doing two logically separate tasks. I prefer having (arguably) better code than having less code churn and a smaller patch size. -- Ross Lagerwall