From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755144AbYINPtE (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:49:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751952AbYINPsy (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:48:54 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:59833 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751254AbYINPsx (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:48:53 -0400 Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:48:25 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Dean Nelson Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" , Alan Mayer , jeremy@goop.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Yinghai Lu Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] dynamically allocate arch specific system vectors Message-ID: <20080914154825.GA13513@elte.hu> References: <489C6844.9050902@sgi.com> <20080811165930.GI4524@elte.hu> <48A0737F.9010207@sgi.com> <20080911152304.GA13655@sgi.com> <20080914153522.GJ29290@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080914153522.GJ29290@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > There are two kernel modules, sgi-gru and sgi-xp (in drivers/misc), > > that each need two vectors. And there's the broadcast assist unit > > (BAU) that is involved in tlb shootdown on uv, which currently uses > > statically reserved vector 0xf8 (UV_BAU_MESSAGE -- see > > uv_bau_init()). > > while i understand the UV_BAU_MESSAGE case (TLB flushes are special), > why does sgi-gru and sgi-xp need to go that deep? They are drivers, > they should be able to make use of an ordinary irq just like the other > 2000 drivers we have do. ... but all in one, i still like this concept as it's a nice clean-up. I just dont think it should be exposed to generic drivers, and i think it needs further fixes and cleanups. (see my previous mails) Ingo