Re: [PATCH] x86/sfi: fix ioapic gsi range

From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Tue Jun 08 2010 - 17:09:14 EST

On 06/08/2010 01:59 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> No. There is no reason to loose 16 IDT entries indefinitely. We may
> need a boot time allocation when we see we have isa irqs, to replace
> the static allocation that we have. But for the most part we dynamically
> idt entries aka vector numbers today, and there is no reason we can't
> generalize that in the future.

Well, that boot time allocation is one of the things
legacy_pic->nr_legacy_irq is used for, and it really makes sense, I
think. I would really like to move away from a compile-time allocation,
and I still find it hard to believe it has a reason to exist.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at