| 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: <20101124140048.GG24970@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:00:49 +0000 From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Cc: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [question] NR_IRQS in genirq On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:54:38PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:46:06PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > > Most ARM platforms have come up with some Kconfig gunk to allow boards > > to extend this for off-SoC GPIOs. It'd be really nice to get rid of > > NR_IRQS and stop having to worry about this at all :( > I mean with sparse_irq you can set NR_IRQS insanely high w/o > increasing memory consumption. That's the whole point. Yeah, I was just pointing out common practice on ARM (sparse IRQ isn't widely enough deployed there :/ ). Would it be worth having sparse_irq change the default NR_IRQS to be something suitably large - there doesn't seem any point in having platforms using it each pick their own particular definition of insanely high? I'll take a look and cook up a patch unless I can spot anything silly about that by myself. -- 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