From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750795AbWFUOJS (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:09:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750794AbWFUOJR (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:09:17 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:33507 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750719AbWFUOJQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:09:16 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Rajesh Shah Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, discuss@x86-64.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andi Kleen , Natalie Protasevich , Len Brown , Kimball Murray , Brice Goglin , Greg Lindahl , Dave Olson , Jeff Garzik , Greg KH , Grant Grundler , "bibo,mao" , Jesper Juhl , Shaohua Li , Matthew Wilcox , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Ashok Raj , Randy Dunlap , Roland Dreier , Tony Luck Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/25] i386 irq: Dynamic irq support References: <11508425191063-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <1150842520235-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <11508425201406-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <1150842520775-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <11508425213394-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <115084252131-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <11508425213795-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <11508425222427-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <20060620185015.F10402@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20060620192734.G10402@unix-os.sc.intel.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 08:07:49 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20060620192734.G10402@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (Rajesh Shah's message of "Tue, 20 Jun 2006 19:27:34 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rajesh Shah writes: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 08:21:00PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Rajesh Shah writes: >> >> > It would be really good to decouple MSI implementation from IO >> > APICs, since there's really no real hardware dependence here. >> > This code can actually go to arch/xxx/pci/msi-apic.c >> >> I agree in theory. In practice however msi interrupts look like io_apics. >> with a different register set and the use all of the same support facilities. >> So until that part of the architecture is refactored it doesn't make much >> sense. There is a slightly better case for moving the code into a separate >> file. Namely I think I know of a second common implementation for x86_64. >> At which point the files will probably be named msi-intel.c and msi-amd.c >> Or something like that. >> > Actually, I meant just the vector tracking code could be in a > separate file and the ioapic and msi code could both assign > vectors from a common routine. I had the patch below in my > patchkit, plus another patch for x86_64 to do the same thing > in io_apic.c and share the same intrvec.c file between the > two archs. Once you have this, the MSI callbacks in arch > code can be moved out of io_apic.c Well irq.c is probably the obvious place to put it. But that goes way beyond small obviously correct steps. So there is no way I'm going to include a change like that in the middle of my patchset because it is unnecessary. Doing this kind of thing later is certainly sane. I guess this is a difference in focus. You have been focused on code cleanup. I have been focused on breaking the unnatural tying between parts of the code. As for this specific patch it makes no sense to only move half of assign_irq_vector to a different file. Eric