On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 15:07 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 23:18 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > plain text document attachment (powerpc-use-new-allocator.patch) > > > Use the new functions and free the descriptor when the virq is > > > destroyed. > > > > Looks ok as a first pass, but we should go further and replace the > > allocator we have in powerpc to use yours instead. > > > > Then I should get rid of my big irq_map that maps virq to HW number & > > domain pointers and instead put those in the irq data. Any objection to > > me sticking some archdata there for that purpose ? > > No, though if we can avoid another void pointer and have a sensible > data structure for it would be nice. Yes, I'm thinking about an arch defined structure like I did for struct device. Cheers, Ben. > > That would make things much cleaner and in fact move one large step > > toward being able to make powerpc virq scheme generic, which seems to be > > a good idea from what I've heard :-) > > Yep. > > Thanks, > > tglx > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html