From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933532Ab2GMSyK (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:54:10 -0400 Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:44164 "EHLO mail-we0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932263Ab2GMSyH (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:54:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4FFEBB39.8090308@redhat.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:53:45 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0eGJaMaRE2gwhoNFAWh7MGyvr0M Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] KVM fixes for 3.5-rc6 To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Avi Kivity , linux-kernel , Marcelo Tosatti , KVM list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > We already discussed to let the irq chip (in this case MSI) tell the > core that it does not need the extra oneshot handling. That way the > code which requests an threaded irq with the NULL primary handler > works on both MSI and normal interrupts. So I don't think your patch is quite right. If you want to clear the IRQF_ONESHOT for MSI irq's (and other ones where the interrupt controller is fundamentally ONESHOT), I think you should do it a few lines higher up - *before* you check the "does the IRQF_ONESHOT mask match other shared interrupts"? Now, irq sharing presumably doesn't happen with MSI, but there's nothing fundamentally wrong with message-based irq schemes that have shared interrupt handlers. I think. Hmm? Linus