From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:22:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C66276FE.DC8E%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD62F1B68F3@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 20/06/2009 09:57, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
> So the real trouble is ACPI , which encode all platform bits if
> they're not included in any existing BUS spec, such as power,
> thermal, processor, battery, PCI routing, hotplug, EC, etc. Some
> are owned by dom0 and some by Xen. However ACPI's AML encoding
> makes automatic division between two categories really difficult.
Yes, we share the same lament regarding ACPI. I'm not sure what the best
(cleanest, simplest, whatever) solution really is going forward. We're
certainly happy to make quite fundamental changes in Xen if there is
sufficient win to be had.
-- Keir
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:22:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C66276FE.DC8E%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD62F1B68F3@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
On 20/06/2009 09:57, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:
> So the real trouble is ACPI , which encode all platform bits if
> they're not included in any existing BUS spec, such as power,
> thermal, processor, battery, PCI routing, hotplug, EC, etc. Some
> are owned by dom0 and some by Xen. However ACPI's AML encoding
> makes automatic division between two categories really difficult.
Yes, we share the same lament regarding ACPI. I'm not sure what the best
(cleanest, simplest, whatever) solution really is going forward. We're
certainly happy to make quite fundamental changes in Xen if there is
sufficient win to be had.
-- Keir
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-20 10:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 79+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-12 18:22 [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because there's no local APIC Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 18:22 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 18:28 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-12 18:28 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-12 18:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 18:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 20:11 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-06-15 2:01 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-12 20:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-12 20:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 2:06 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-15 10:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 10:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 20:49 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-15 20:49 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-15 21:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 21:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-16 19:38 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-16 19:38 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-17 5:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 5:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 12:02 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 12:02 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-17 17:32 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-17 17:32 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 2:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 2:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 19:34 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:34 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 20:28 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 21:09 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 21:09 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 1:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 1:38 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 3:10 ` [Xen-devel] " Jiang, Yunhong
2009-06-19 3:10 ` Jiang, Yunhong
2009-06-18 12:26 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 10:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-15 10:51 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 16:08 ` Len Brown
2009-06-18 19:14 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:14 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 19:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 19:48 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 20:39 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-18 22:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-18 22:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 2:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 2:42 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 19:58 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 19:58 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2009-06-19 23:44 ` [Xen-devel] " Nakajima, Jun
2009-06-19 23:44 ` Nakajima, Jun
2009-06-20 7:39 ` [Xen-devel] " Keir Fraser
2009-06-20 7:39 ` Keir Fraser
2009-06-20 8:21 ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 8:21 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 8:57 ` [Xen-devel] " Tian, Kevin
2009-06-20 8:57 ` Tian, Kevin
2009-06-20 10:22 ` Keir Fraser [this message]
2009-06-20 10:22 ` Keir Fraser
2009-06-20 8:18 ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 8:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 5:32 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-19 5:32 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-19 5:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 5:50 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 7:52 ` [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs justbecause " Jan Beulich
2009-06-19 7:52 ` Jan Beulich
2009-06-19 8:16 ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-19 8:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 3:58 ` [Xen-devel] " Yinghai Lu
2009-06-20 3:58 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-20 5:40 ` [Xen-devel] " Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 5:40 ` Eric W. Biederman
2009-06-20 5:58 ` [Xen-devel] " Yinghai Lu
2009-06-20 5:58 ` Yinghai Lu
2009-06-18 22:51 ` [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs just because " Maciej W. Rozycki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=C66276FE.DC8E%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
--to=keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.