Re: [PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq v13

[H. Peter Anvin]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/