On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Alan Altmark wrote: > So what you're saying, Sebastian, is that (a) fine-grained control over > what devices interrupt what CPUs is not in the Z architecture, (b) it's > not in there for a good reason, (c) providing such a capability would > adversely affect overall system performance (which is why it's not in the > architecture in the first place).
I've said (a) and gave my interpretation on why I don't think that this is currently a huge issue. > It might, however, be an interesting idea to make the ioctl()s in the > device driver a no-op instead of not being present or generating its own > errnos. That way folks can turn the knob, feel better, but not see any > change since "it doesn't get any better than this". Nope. That would be false advertising and an API violation. Sebastian ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
