Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261378AbUKWVsM (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:48:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261415AbUKWVsC (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:48:02 -0500 Received: from viper.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.4]:18382 "HELO viper.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261378AbUKWVrW (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:47:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.10-rc2-mm2-V0.7.29-0, and 30-9 From: Lee Revell To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML In-Reply-To: <1101244924.32068.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20041123115201.GA26714@elte.hu> <1101244924.32068.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:47:18 -0500 Message-Id: <1101246438.1594.3.camel@krustophenia.net> 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: 767 Lines: 17 On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 16:22 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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. I raised this issue before. I agree that all interrupts should get the same RT prio by default. Otherwise the default behavior is arbitrary. Lee - 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/