>There are probably better ways to control 224 possible IRQs by their
>total number instead of their range, and per-cpu IDTs are the better
>answer to the IRQ shortage altogether. But just going back to
>the way it was wouldn't be right I think.
>We were able to run 2 generations of
>systems only because we had this compression, other big systems
>benefited from it as well.
I don't propose reverting the IRQ re-name patch and breaking the
big iron without replacing it with something else that works.
My point is that the re-name patch has added unnecessary maintenance
complexity to the 99.9% of systems that it runs on. We pay that price
in several ways, including mis-understandings about what devices
are on what irqs, and mis-understandings about how the code is
supposed to work.
-Len
-
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]
