On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 02:41:32AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> While moving our XenoLinux patches to 4.2-rc I noticed bogus "already
> mapped" messages resulting from Linux (legitimately) writing RTEs with
> only the mask bit set. Clearly we shouldn't even attempt to create a
> pIRQ <-> IRQ mapping
On 21/08/15 16:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 21.08.15 at 16:58, wrote:
>> On 21/08/15 09:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> In the course of this I also found that the respective message isn't
>>> really useful without also printing the pre-existing mapping. And I
>>> noticed that map_domain_pirq() allow
>>> On 21.08.15 at 16:58, wrote:
> On 21/08/15 09:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> In the course of this I also found that the respective message isn't
>> really useful without also printing the pre-existing mapping. And I
>> noticed that map_domain_pirq() allowed IRQ0 to get through, despite us
>> never
On 21/08/15 09:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
> While moving our XenoLinux patches to 4.2-rc I noticed bogus "already
> mapped" messages resulting from Linux (legitimately) writing RTEs with
> only the mask bit set. Clearly we shouldn't even attempt to create a
> pIRQ <-> IRQ mapping from such RTEs.
Oops.
While moving our XenoLinux patches to 4.2-rc I noticed bogus "already
mapped" messages resulting from Linux (legitimately) writing RTEs with
only the mask bit set. Clearly we shouldn't even attempt to create a
pIRQ <-> IRQ mapping from such RTEs.
In the course of this I also found that the respect
