On Mon, 2015-07-13 at 13:35 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Michael Ellerman
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2015-12-07 at 22:02:11 UTC, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> Many architectures use a variant of "unexpected IRQ trap at vector %x" to
> >> log unexpected IRQs. This is conf
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Sun, 2015-12-07 at 22:02:11 UTC, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> Many architectures use a variant of "unexpected IRQ trap at vector %x" to
>> log unexpected IRQs. This is confusing because (a) it prints the Linux IRQ
>> number, but "vector" m
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Many architectures use a variant of "unexpected IRQ trap at vector %x" to
> log unexpected IRQs. This is confusing because (a) it prints the Linux IRQ
> number, but "vector" more often refers to a CPU vector number, and (b) it
> prints the
On Sun, 2015-12-07 at 22:02:11 UTC, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> Many architectures use a variant of "unexpected IRQ trap at vector %x" to
> log unexpected IRQs. This is confusing because (a) it prints the Linux IRQ
> number, but "vector" more often refers to a CPU vector number, and (b) it
> prints the
Many architectures use a variant of "unexpected IRQ trap at vector %x" to
log unexpected IRQs. This is confusing because (a) it prints the Linux IRQ
number, but "vector" more often refers to a CPU vector number, and (b) it
prints the IRQ number in hex with no base indication, while Linux IRQ
numbe
