From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263576AbTDWUCj (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:02:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263578AbTDWUCj (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:02:39 -0400 Received: from [12.47.58.232] ([12.47.58.232]:37519 "EHLO pao-ex01.pao.digeo.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263576AbTDWUCh (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:02:37 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:15:32 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Bill Davidsen Cc: philippe.gramoulle@mmania.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.67-mm4 & IRQ balancing Message-Id: <20030423131532.3ad2e3eb.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20030419133837.0118907b.akpm@digeo.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.11 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Apr 2003 20:14:39.0902 (UTC) FILETIME=[F83DC3E0:01C309D4] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Bill Davidsen wrote: > > > - Can build irqbalanced into the intial initramfs image as part of kernel > > build. (lacking klibc, we would need to statically link against glibc) > > Why, please? Unless you postulate that (a) the default kernel balance > would be so bad the machine wouldn't boot, or (b) that the interface would > be done only once at boot time, there's no reason for the user program to > be in initramfs, is there? Let the distribution put it where other system > things like ifconfig live. Mainly as an exercise in using the initramfs infrastructure for something real. It's doubtful that irqbalanced would be started that way in real life.