"Luck, Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> What I'm proposing we do is move the irq allocation code out of >> pci_enable_device and the irq freeing code out of pci_disable_device >> in the future. > > Sounds rational ... in a world that wasn't dominated by PCI it would > seem to be the logical approach (since the irq code would have much > more utility independent of the PCI code).
Right. We can even do this earlier in the pci code. Just doing this on demand when the device driver needs it is problematic. As devices drivers like to keep the requested over a pci_disable_device pci_enable_device pair. The big practical issue is that we will like wind up allocating an irq number to all usable irqs on ia64. Which means we will like need many more irq numbers... Although I guess if we keep it at the pci layer we should be fairly safe. I was afraid there was some hotplug reason for waiting until pci_enable_device to allocate the irq numbers. >> Tony, Len before we merge any fixes for 2.6.21-rcX I'd like to at >> least get an ack on the long term direction. > > Long-term-direction-acked-by: Tony Luck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Thanks. Then small surgery will happen now, and I will start queuing up the major surgery patches. Although I won't be able to do more than compile test and code review the ia64 changes. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
