* Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I propose we remove all assumptions from the code that we actually
> have an array of irqs. That will allow for irq_desc to be dynamically
> allocated instead of statically allocated saving memory and reducing
> kernel complexity.
hm. I'd suggest to do this without changing request_irq() - and then we
could avoid the 'massive, every driver affected' change, right?
i.e. because we'll (have to) have an nr_to_desc() and desc_to_nr()
mapping facility anyway, lets just not change the driver APIs massively.
There dont seem to be that many drivers that assume that irq_desc[] is
an array - are there?
otherwise, in terms of the irqchips infrastructure and the API between
genirq and the irqchip arch-level drivers, this change makes quite a bit
of sense i think.
or am i missing something fundamental?
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
