Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:30:35 -0700 | From | "Yinghai Lu" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/42] dyn_array/nr_irqs/sparse_irq support v5 |
| |
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> 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
| |