On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Michael Ellerman <mich...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:44 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> Why not make sparse IRQs manditory for all platforms? Is there a >> performance concern with doing so? From a maintenance perspective, >> I'd rather see IRQ descs manged in one way only to keep the code >> simple. > > I agree on the maintenance angle. My thinking was we'd run with it > optional but default y for a release or two, and if no one complains we > can make it mandatory. > > It does make some code paths bigger, and looking up an irq_desc is going > to take slightly more cycles. I don't think it's a big issue, but I > thought we should try it for a while before making it mandatory. The > code has only been tested on x86 and sh as far as I know.
No guts, no glory. I say throw it into linux-next to give it some time before the next merge window. I don't think you'll get any better results by having it optional for a few releases (in fact, I suspect that people who do have problems will just end up turning it off and waiting for someone else to report/fix the problems). If this is the direction IRQ handling is going, then just make the change and force any bugs to be dealt with before the next release. > ps. thanks for the review You're welcome. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
