From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E5F2DDEE2 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:29:01 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <1168535981.18021.50.camel@localhost> References: <20070111112504.37999DDF3E@ozlabs.org> <265e85080dc6d43eed2a42d06412eb92@kernel.crashing.org> <1168535981.18021.50.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <477bb0db0bf2506a38d91d48a81b55c2@kernel.crashing.org> From: Segher Boessenkool Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] MPIC MSI allocator Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:27:12 +0100 To: will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , Olof Johannsson , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>> + /* Reserve source numbers we know are reserved in the HW */ >>> + for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) __mpic_msi_reserve_hwirq(mpic, i); >>> + for (i = 42; i < 46; i++) __mpic_msi_reserve_hwirq(mpic, i); >>> + for (i = 100; i < 105; i++) __mpic_msi_reserve_hwirq(mpic, i); >> >> Coding style. The ranges you reserve are a bit too wide, >> but that is certainly safe. > > Can you clarify that comment a bit for me? Why are they too wide, > and > if they are too wide, how are they still safe? A few vectors that can be used freely are marked as not being so. That is fine, there are plenty left. Segher