Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86: update nr_irqs according cpu num

[Eric W. Biederman]

Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Eric W. Biederman
> <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> that is max number on run time.
>>
>> Ouch! ÂUnless I misread this code this will leave nr_irqs at
>> NR_IRQS_LEGACY. aka 16.
>
> nr_irqs is set to NR_IRQS before.

Yep my mistake.

>> Let's do something stupid and simple.
>> nr_irqs = nr_cpus_ids * 256; Â/* Semi-arbitrary number */
>>
>> Ideally we would set "nr_irqs = 0x7fffffff;" but we have just enough
>> places using nr_irqs that I think those loops would get painful if we
>> were to do that.
>
> or you need have NR_IRQS = NR_CPUS * 256 at first,
>
> and then make nr_irqs = nr_cpu_ids * 224 ?

The important part is that NR_IRQS become an arbitrary number larger
than we can strictly support.

Based on my quick look the bad offenders (aka static sized arrays of
NR_IRQS) all look at NR_IRQS not nr_irqs.  So I don't see a point
in having nr_irqs < NR_IRQS.

So let's just kill arch_probe_nr_irqs() on x86.

Then we can worry about things like fixing xen and the interrupt
remapping code to not having NR_IRQS sized arrays.

Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/