Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:26:12 +0100 (BST) | From | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <> | Subject | XT-PIC-XT-PIC in /proc/interrupts on x86 |
| |
Hi,
Is there a specific purpose we print "XT-PIC" for twice in /proc/interrupts these days on x86 (and maybe other) systems, e.g.:
CPU0 0: 860089 XT-PIC-XT-PIC timer 1: 7165 XT-PIC-XT-PIC i8042 2: 0 XT-PIC-XT-PIC cascade 3: 6 XT-PIC-XT-PIC serial 4: 10 XT-PIC-XT-PIC serial 6: 3 XT-PIC-XT-PIC floppy 8: 0 XT-PIC-XT-PIC rtc0 12: 178 XT-PIC-XT-PIC eth0 14: 37128 XT-PIC-XT-PIC ide0 15: 0 XT-PIC-XT-PIC ide1 NMI: 0 Non-maskable interrupts ERR: 0
? This looks weird to me and is almost surely an artefact of code we have in `show_interrupts' in kernel/irq/proc.c:
if (desc->irq_data.chip) { if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_print_chip) desc->irq_data.chip->irq_print_chip(&desc->irq_data, p); else if (desc->irq_data.chip->name) seq_printf(p, " %8s", desc->irq_data.chip->name); [...] if (desc->name) seq_printf(p, "-%-8s", desc->name);
with `desc->irq_data.chip->name' and `desc->name' both being "XT-PIC".
Wouldn't it make sense to set the latter to NULL if it was to be the same as the former? I'll make a patch to implement it unless I hear a valid argument to the contrary. It's redundant information after all, and confusing noise IMHO.
Maciej
| |