Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261544AbUKWVYs (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:24:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261441AbUKWVXq (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:23:46 -0500 Received: from bgm-24-95-139-53.stny.rr.com ([24.95.139.53]:39300 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261561AbUKWVWK (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:22:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.10-rc2-mm2-V0.7.29-0, and 30-9 From: Steven Rostedt To: Ingo Molnar Cc: LKML In-Reply-To: References: <20041123115201.GA26714@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:22:04 -0500 Message-Id: <1101244924.32068.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 606 Lines: 16 Just curious to why you scale the interrupts from 49 down to 25. What would be wrong with keeping all of them at 49 (or whatever). Being a FIFO, no interrupt would preempt another. Why would you want the first IRQs to be registered have higher priority than (and thus will preempt) irqs registered later. -- Steven Rostedt Senior Engineer Kihon Technologies - 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/