From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Add allowed_affinity to the irq_desc to make it possible to have restricted irqs
References: <1166018020.27217.805.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
	<m1lklbport.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
	<1166040131.27217.888.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:16:28 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1166040131.27217.888.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> (Arjan van de
	Ven's message of "Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:02:11 +0100")
Message-ID: <m1ac1rpn4z.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 995
Lines: 29

Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> writes:

>> .
>> 
>> In addition the cases I can think of allowed_affinity is the wrong
>> name.  suggested_affinity sounds like what you are trying to implement
>> and when it is merely a suggestion and not a hard limit it doesn't
>> make sense to export like this.
>
> it really IS a hard limit. 

Ok.  Which generally makes it uninteresting.  The only cases that I know
with a hard limit are completely unrouteable.

In addition upon reflection you don't handle PER_CPU irqs properly.  As
I recall ia64 uses a different per cpu irq source to target each
individual processor.  But because they are the same the share the
irq source.

I don't think allowed_affinity can even describe the case above.

Eric


-
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/