Re: [PATCH 00/42] dyn_array/nr_irqs/sparse_irq support v5

[Yinghai Lu]

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>> So I'm still clearly missing something about this... if we need sparse
>>> IRQs
>>> in the first place (which we do), what's the point of the dyn_array?
>>
>> x86_64: support CONFIG_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ and CONFIG_DYN_ARRAY
>> x86_32: support CONFIG_DYN_ARRAY
>>
>> some arches could use dyn_array with probing nr_irqs and it could be
>> 32 and much less than 224.
>> some could have that like 512. and those arch may not need to mess up
>> with sparse_irq at first point.
>> but still could get some flexibilty about that array size.
>>
>
> As an x86 maintainer, I definitely do not want x86-64 and x86-32 to diverge
> unless there is an extremely strong reason to.
>
> Other architectures may speak for themselves, but why not just support
> sparse IRQs on x86-32 *and* -64 and skip the dyn_array variant?

after we merged io_apic_32.c into io_apic_64.c.
also I want to kill irq balance in io_apic_32.c, but no one say
anything about it.

also dyn_array could have other user in addition to nr_irqs.
i will dig it out like NR_CPUS/nr_cpu_ids related array. and Mike
tried to put every thing to PER_CPU instead of array, maybe some case
array would be effient than that. that make dyn_array some usage.

YH
--
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/