Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:36:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
cc: James Cleverdon <jamesclv@us.ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
       Chris McDermott <lcm@us.ibm.com>,
       "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] 2.6.1-mm2: Get irq_vector size right for generic subarch
 UP installer kernels
In-Reply-To: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017361883D@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0401141815090.15331@montezuma.fsmlabs.com>
References: <7F740D512C7C1046AB53446D3720017361883D@scsmsx402.sc.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 984
Lines: 20

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Nakajima, Jun wrote:

> I tend to agree. I think the confusing part is the range of the IRQs on
> that machine. Assuming that irq_vector[NR_IRQ_VECTORS = 1024] requires
> more entries, then the IRQs should take that range, because
> IO_APCI_VECTOR(irq) is just irq_vector[irq], for example. If NR_IRQS is
> still 224, how can do_IRQ() can get the correct IRQ (i.e. >= 224) ? So
> in that case, the IRQ should be smaller than 224, then irq_vector[]
> should be smaller.

In my opinion we should be breaking after we've exceeded the maximum
external vectors we can install. This will of course mean less than
the number of RTEs. James have you actually managed to use the devices
connected to the high (over ~224) RTEs?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/