>There are probably better ways to control 224 possible IRQs by their >total number instead of their range, and per-cpu IDTs are the better >answer to the IRQ shortage altogether. But just going back to >the way it was wouldn't be right I think. >We were able to run 2 generations of >systems only because we had this compression, other big systems >benefited from it as well. I don't propose reverting the IRQ re-name patch and breaking the big iron without replacing it with something else that works. My point is that the re-name patch has added unnecessary maintenance complexity to the 99.9% of systems that it runs on. We pay that price in several ways, including mis-understandings about what devices are on what irqs, and mis-understandings about how the code is supposed to work. -Len - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
