Re: 2.6.17-mm6

[Eric W. Biederman]

Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> writes:

> Maybe not.  If we do this, we lose the pretty CPUn columns in
> /proc/interrupts.  That /proc/interrupts display requires that we maintain
> NR_CPUS*NR_IRQS counters.
>
> Given that a large NR_IRQs space will be sparsely populated, we should
> dynamically allocate the NR_CPUS storage for each active IRQ, as you say.
>
> That involves putting it into the irq_desc (as good a place as any).  And a
> rather large number of trivial edits.  I guess we do this only for genirq?

Actually I rechecked.  There is one alpha box that defines
NR_IRQS to be 32K.  Which should hit this same problem if anyone
ever compiles it.

So this may actually seems to be an issue independent of genirq.

Eric

-
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/