[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20081024.161818.256978293.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:18:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: galak@...nel.crashing.org
Cc: csnook@...hat.com, maxk@...lcomm.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: default IRQ affinity change in v2.6.27 (breaking several SMP
PPC based systems)
From: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:39:05 -0500
> As for making it ARCH specific, that doesn't really help since not
> all PPC hw has the limitation I spoke of. Not even all MPIC (in our
> cases) have the limitation.
Since the PPC code knows exactly which MPICs have the problem the
PPC code is where the constraining can occur.
I agree completely with the suggestion that the arch code has to
interpret the cpumask as appropriate for the hardware, since the
user can stick "illegal" values there anyways.
--
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