Sedat Dilek <[email protected]> writes: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Florian Mickler <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:48:43 +0200 >> Paul Bolle <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 10:01 +0200, Florian Mickler wrote: >>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c >>> > b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c >>> > index 68df09b..3940103 100644 >>> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c >>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c >>> > @@ -3789,6 +3789,9 @@ int acpi_get_override_irq(u32 gsi, int *trigger, >>> > int *polarity) >>> > { >>> > int ioapic, pin, idx; >>> > >>> > + if (acpi_irq_model != ACPI_IRQ_MODEL_IOAPIC) >>> > + return -1; >>> > + >>> > if (skip_ioapic_setup) >>> > return -1; >>> > >>> >>> Seems to have the same goal as commit >>> 678301ecadec24ff77ab310eebf8a32ccddb1850 ("x86, ioapic: Don't warn about >>> non-existing IOAPICs if we have none"), which got merged in the v2.6.38 >>> cycle (authored by me, signed off by Ingo Molnar). Maybe Eric's patch is >>> more correct. I can't say as I was happy with the effect of my patch >>> (ie, make an uninteresting error disappear) and didn't investigate any >>> further. I have also no desire to dive into this matter again.
Yes. My patch is more correct. We really do want the warning if we have 0 ioapics and we expect to be using ioapics. It doesn't make sense to suppress the warning unless we aren't in ioapic mode. I don't have a clue why my patch got lost, but can we please get it applied? >> Thanks for letting me know. Sedat, did you actually test with 2.6.38? >> >> Regards, >> Flo > I have and had this patch in my own patch-series *before* Debian > included it (IIRC right after Eric committed it to LKML). > To answer your question: Yes. > I have the patch also in my current linux-next kernels > (next-20110331). Eric _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
