On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:41:26PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:

On 2017/1/16 22:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

On 16/01/17 14:07, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:

quoted

Hi Rafael,

On 2017-01-03 16:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Agustin Vega-Frias
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

Is there any more feedback on this beyond Lorenzo's suggestion to drop
the conditional check on the first patch?
How can we move forward on this series?

Essentially, I need to convince myself that patches [1-2/3] are fine
which hasn't happened yet.

Pinging again. Do you have any questions that might help with your
review? I have some minor changes I have to make to the driver itself
(patch 3) and I'd like to submit any changes you might want along with
those.

I'd like to add that these two initial patches are now a prerequisite
for Hanjun's series, so it'd be good to have an idea of where we're
going on that front.

Is it helpful to test patch [1-2/3] on x86 machines (with different firmware) and
an IA64 machine (surely a different version of firmware :) ) with Lorenzo's suggestion
of removing  #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_GSI for is_gsi()? If yes, I can do that as
I have such machines.

Well, it is always helpful, as helpful as getting this change into -next
as soon as possible, at the end of the day it is quite simple, as soon
as (hopefully never) we find some firmware out there (x86/ia64) that
misused the resource source field in the interrupt descriptor we will
have to add that guard back, it is as simple as that.

Thanks,
Lorenzo