"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report >>> of recent regressions. >>> >>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions >>> from 2.6.26. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know >>> (either way). >> >> Yep. There is a patch in -mm. It seems the process is to wait for Thomas & >> Ingo to get back before we send this to Linus. >> > > Yes, unfortunately I still don't have enough testing resources to want to push > this upstream. I'm queuing it up for submission, though. No problem. I don't expect any problems as it is a simple reversion of the definition of NR_IRQS on x86_64 to what we had before everything was merged into irq_vectors.h and the x86_64 bits got lost. With the result that NR_IRQS varies in practice between 244 and 4096 depending on how many cpus you have. We have had NR_IRQS that large on x86_64 for a year or better now so I don't expect any practical problems. The long term fix will obviously be kill NR_IRQS. But that is not a 2.6.27 term project. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
