Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-mm6 | Date | Thu, 06 Jul 2006 10:49:25 -0600 |
| |
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
> Maybe not. If we do this, we lose the pretty CPUn columns in > /proc/interrupts. That /proc/interrupts display requires that we maintain > NR_CPUS*NR_IRQS counters. > > Given that a large NR_IRQs space will be sparsely populated, we should > dynamically allocate the NR_CPUS storage for each active IRQ, as you say. > > That involves putting it into the irq_desc (as good a place as any). And a > rather large number of trivial edits. I guess we do this only for genirq?
Actually I rechecked. There is one alpha box that defines NR_IRQS to be 32K. Which should hit this same problem if anyone ever compiles it.
So this may actually seems to be an issue independent of genirq.
Eric
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |