| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4920B3E3.4050707@zytor.com> Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:59:31 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> CC: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, travis@....com Subject: Re: [PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq v13 Yinghai Lu wrote: > H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> Yinghai Lu wrote: >>> 2. make irq number is bus/devfn/idx, and every dev func will use 12bit range, irq number is relatively fixed not like current MSI irq creating is some kind of floating from NR_IRQS too. >> 2 is *STILL WRONG*, dammit! >> >> You keep bringing this one up, but our PCI addressing is >> *DOMAIN*/bus/devfn -- it falls flat on its face when you have more than >> 16 PCI domains. CAN WE PLEASE STOP WITH THIS FOOLISHNESS NOW! > > you want to u64 instead of unsigned int for irq? > No, I think the whole notion of a static *numeric* identifier for an IRQ when it's something like MSI-X is simply pointless. I think we should assign IRQ numbers beyond the legacy range dynamically. I really don't think anyone gives a hoot about the IRQ number for any IRQ above the 0-15 legacy range, even including the "APIC" numbers 16+. -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