>
> >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.
Len, maybe it sounds dramatic and/or extreme, but how about getting rid
of IRQs and just having GSI-vector pair.
I intuitively think that would be possible (not that I have all the
details lined up :)
And this would probably take away confusing IRQ abstraction out once and
for all? I think something like that is done in ia64.
--Natalie
>
> 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]
