lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: [(repost) git Patch 1/1] avoid IRQ0 ioapic pin collision
Date
From

>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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-04-27 20:16    [W:0.027 / U:2.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site