RE: [(repost) git Patch 1/1] avoid IRQ0 ioapic pin collision

[Brown, Len]

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