From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762620AbYHHWPQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:15:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752105AbYHHWPA (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:15:00 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.247]:3607 "EHLO an-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751498AbYHHWO7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:14:59 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=ixHb/xDdYZ0GOzIo6QJy9oBeL60SBGh55VvGZPhaHgwi9P6HmIDRmitkDC92GfCmC6 vHIK9lvFFG+QuKNt+AYxP0VQgHx89xPt7fpTrKHUchBm8BP8d3oYi9pfQTMclZ5s4FC7 NW2lX9RQbJZvKUP3rtjIG+BGBOiNNbTpkG5HM= Message-ID: <86802c440808081514w3a7ea1d6hda2442e7bf6729a4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:14:55 -0700 From: "Yinghai Lu" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/42] dyn_array/nr_irqs/sparse_irq support v5 Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Dhaval Giani" , "Mike Travis" , "Andrew Morton" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <489CC246.5000202@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1218232368-31228-1-git-send-email-yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> <489CC246.5000202@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 3:01 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Yinghai Lu wrote: >> >> Please check dyn_array support for x86 >> v3: split changing to nr_irqs to small patches >> fix checkpatch error >> reorder the patch sequence to make dyn_array support go at first >> so could use that with arrays other than NR_IRQS >> v4: add CONFIG_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ with list to use condensed irq_desc array >> so could use 32 init, and init more if needed. >> x86 32bit: have CONFIG_HAVE_DYN_ARRAY >> x86 64bit: have CONFIG_HAVE_DYN_ARRAY and CONFIG_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ >> > > So I'm still clearly missing something about this... if we need sparse IRQs > in the first place (which we do), what's the point of the dyn_array? x86_64: support CONFIG_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ and CONFIG_DYN_ARRAY x86_32: support CONFIG_DYN_ARRAY some arches could use dyn_array with probing nr_irqs and it could be 32 and much less than 224. some could have that like 512. and those arch may not need to mess up with sparse_irq at first point. but still could get some flexibilty about that array size. YH