On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 21:41 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 05:31 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 07:17:00PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > > Some years ago, we had discussions about getting rid of IRQ numbers > > > > altogether, or at least the requirement to have device drivers know > > > > about them. Does anyone remember what happened to that idea? > > > > > > I think it's not totally dead. Last I heard, someone (jgarzik ?) was > > > slowly, bit by bit, removing the dependencies on the irq argument on irq > > > handlers which is one step in the direction. > > > > I think that project's dead, Jim. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/22/578 > > Ouch, missed that one... sad, would have been a good idea in the long > run. irq_desc array is a big PITA. Well it looks like Linus' main objection is with changing the driver API, which does make sense, _that_ would be a PITA. > > You can't do that. /proc/interrupts is so terribly useful for a > > sysadmin that you can't remove information from it. > > You can create a new one with informations about the new stuff.. > > Anyway, looks like it's not happening and we'll be stuck with the bloody > array for the time being. Crap. In most cases that I can see the conversion from irq number to irq_desc is done in the genirq code, so I don't see why you couldn't just put a remapping in there from irq numbers to descs that doesn't use an array. But maybe I'm missing something. cheers -- Michael Ellerman OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
