Re: [PATCH] i386 IOAPIC: de-fang IRQ compression

[Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>]

On Wednesday 05 December 2007 04:48, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:26:49 +0100
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > * Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >     So while the irq compression code on i386 should really
> > > >     be deleted -- even before merging the x86_64 irq-overhaul,
> > > >     this patch simply disables it on all high volume systems
> > > >     to avoid problems #1 and #2 on most all i386 systems.
> > > >     
> > > >     A large system with pin numbers >=64 will still have compression
> > > >     to conserve limited IRQ numbers for sparse IOAPICS.  However,
> > > >     the vast majority of the planet, those with only pin numbers < 64
> > > >     will use an identity GSI -> IRQ mapping.
> > > >     
> > > >     Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > thanks for the patch and the extensive description. I've applied this to 
> > > x86.git.
> > 
> > Len applied it to his tree too.
> 
> Len, i think this belongs into x86.git a bit more (especially with the 
> unification activities going on all around the tree) - do you agree? 
> Andrew, i'd suggest to apply a reverted patch to between git.acpi and 
> git.x86 until this gets sorted out.

Sure.
I'm re-basing my test branch right now and can exclude this one
since it is in x86.git. (and yes, I'm interested in unifying mpparse_*.c some day)

yes, your understanding is correct -- this is not urgent 2.6.24 material,
it is just a 'regular patch':-)

Re: making the VIA part into dead-code
I had avoided that originally because I was going to nominate
this patch for the highest check-in-comment length/code-change ratio
But once I went over 1 line I blew the budget;-)

Eric,
What do you suggest we do with NR_IRQS on i386 so that we
can delete the compression code entirely?

thanks,
-Len