Re: [patch 0/3] 2.6.17 radix-tree: updates and lockless

[Christoph Lameter]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> Anyway, I can drop a spinlock in (in fact I have) the ppc64 irq code for
> now but that sucks, thus we should really seriously consider having the
> lockless tree in 2.6.18 or I might have to look into doing an alternate
> implementation specifically in arch code... or find some other way of
> doing the inverse mapping there...

How many interrupts do you have to ? I would expect a simple table 
lookup would be fine to get from the virtual to the real interrupt.

-
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/