And its vital for a real ramdisk and for XIP mapped ROM disks one day. The
point of tmpfs is speed, the point of userfs is flexibility. userfs is not
fast enough for the job.
> From: Linus Torvalds <Linus.Torvalds@cs.helsinki.fi>
>
> Hmm... It would be reasonably easy to change the current array of
> interrupt handlers to an array of a linked list of interrupt handlers:
> essentially just add a "struct irqaction * next" to the definition of
> irqaction, and make the irqactions be allocated dynamically when adding
> a new irq.
What about the times when IRQ lines are allocated before kmalloc/kfree are
available during boot ?
This would also be a good time to make the irq allocation more generic. At
the moment it basically assumes single CPU PC bus style interrupts. Some
systems need to have (bus,irq) pairs. [eg Intel SMP mode on Pentiums]
> - everything that shares an irq has the same "flags" (the irq_request()
> function could check this easily), especially as you can't reasonably
> mix slow and fast interrupts on the same line.
You can. The fast ones run first then the slow one. The end result is like a
slow one. It still works.
Alan