Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1945926AbXBPPgR (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:36:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1945939AbXBPPgR (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:36:17 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:60750 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1945922AbXBPPgP (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:36:15 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [RFC] killing the NR_IRQS arrays. References: <200702161316.41237.ak@suse.de> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:35:43 -0700 In-Reply-To: <200702161316.41237.ak@suse.de> (Andi Kleen's message of "Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:16:41 +0100") Message-ID: 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 X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1421 Lines: 35 Andi Kleen writes: >> I expect the most it makes sense to aim for 2.6.22 are the genirq >> changes so the internal arch code is passing struct irq_desc >> everywhere internally. > > Are there any livetime issues with passing pointers around? > e.g. what happens on APIC hotunplug etc.? We don't necessarily > support that yet, but for a big interface change it should > be probably kept in mind first. Ouch. Let's consider the case of pci device (using msi's) hot unplug. That case we theoretically support today but I'm not certain we account for it. The only real issue (I can imagine) would come from something that is not part of the device driver using the irq, as the device and everything associated with it should have the same lifetime rules. (You can't unplug an ioapic without unplugging the device it is connected to). So the things to consider would be things like /proc/interrupts and /proc/irq. I think we already have some kind of revoke in place when the irq goes away so it probably makes sense just to make that revoke solid and immediate. So I can't imagine any real lifetime issues that would cause us problems with a pointer. 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/