On Thursday 07 February 2013 14:32:06 Heiko Carstens wrote: > > That sounds reasonable. And a quick grep seems to indicate that s390 > is the last architecture with !GENERIC_HARDIRQS. > However having two completely different IRQ subsystems within one > architecture will bring up some interesting questions like e.g. > how should /proc/interrupts look like? Or /proc/stat:intr ?
/proc/interrupts can still be managed by architecture code, and you can put in there whatever makes sense. I would suggest keeping the current code for it, or adding the GENERIC_HARDIRQ support at the end of it. > Jan considered turning GENERIC_HARDIRQS on for PCI support, but didn't. > I don't know why he didn't and since he left, we can't ask him anymore. I briefly talked about it with him a couple of months ago, and he said that the thought Martin would hate it. I still think it's the best solution though. > So for the time being I'd appreciate it if we can simply add the > additional GENERIC_HARDIRQS dependencies where needed, since I consider > a working allmodconfig quite important. > > Later on we should indeed try to switch to GENERIC_HARDIRQS and then > git rid of that config option completely. However I leave that to > Sebastian and Gerald who now take care of our PCI code Yes, makes sense. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/