[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <489CC9C6.10100@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:33:42 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/42] dyn_array/nr_irqs/sparse_irq support v5
Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> Other architectures may speak for themselves, but why not just support
>> sparse IRQs on x86-32 *and* -64 and skip the dyn_array variant?
>
> after we merged io_apic_32.c into io_apic_64.c.
> also I want to kill irq balance in io_apic_32.c, but no one say
> anything about it.
>
> also dyn_array could have other user in addition to nr_irqs.
> i will dig it out like NR_CPUS/nr_cpu_ids related array. and Mike
> tried to put every thing to PER_CPU instead of array, maybe some case
> array would be effient than that. that make dyn_array some usage.
Let the potental other users worry about it at that time. I understand
it's a neat feature, but that doesn't justify adding it at this time if
it's not the right thing forthe job.
I really don't want to see x86-32 and x86-64 diverge more, and I really
don't want to throw in additional complexity if we don't really need it.
-hpa
--
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