[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1zm7c9kwt.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:58:26 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] killing the NR_IRQS arrays.
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org> writes:
>
>> We might need this. But I don't think we need reference counting in
>> the traditional sense. For all practical purpose we already have
>> dynamic irq allocation and it hasn't proven necessary. I would
>> prefer to go to lengths to avoid having to expose that kind of
>> an issue to driver code.
>
> I think we do need proper refcounting, but I also think that most
> drivers will not need to see it.
>
> For example, a PCI driver will most probably just do something along the
> lines of the existing request_irq(pdev->irq), the liftime of pdev->irq
> is managed by the PCI core.
>
> Same goes with MSIs imho, the MSI core can manage the lifetime
> transparently.
Yes. I'm optimistic that we won't find a case where refcounting will
be needed.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists