[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080527145606.GB24457@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 16:56:06 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Question about interrupt routing and irq allocation
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
>> So the most intelligent method would be to reserve the Linux irq
>> itself but not the vector, i.e. allocate from irq_cfg[] in
>> arch/x86/kernel/io_apic_64.c so that the irq number does not get
>> reused - setting irq_cfg[irq].vector to -1 will achieve that.
>
> I'm initially targeting 32-bit, though obviously I'd like something
> that works for both 32 and 64 bit. irq_cfg[] is missing in
> io_apic_32.c; would I achieve the same effect by setting
> irq_vector[irq] = 0xff or something?
ok, here comes the next phase of a rather cunning plan: please unify
these vector allocators first! ;-)
it's nontrivial but would result in rather nice code. I dont know
whether we want to extend per-CPU vectors to 32-bit as well ... but
might be worth an attempt and we could give any exploratory patches a
try in -tip. Eric, what do you think about the general approach?
this would also pave the way towards unified APIC code. Hm?
Ingo
--
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