On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Alex Nixon (Intern)
<Alex.Nixon@citrix.com> wrote:
quoted text
> Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Alex Nixon <alex.nixon@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If the number of discovered IRQs is suspiciously low, this patch causes
>>> the number reported to default to NR_IRQS, rather than 32.  NR_IRQS has
>>> already been defined to be a >sensible value for the current system (in
>>> particular, at least 224 when paravirtualisation is involved).
>>>
>>if only one ioapic, nr will be 24<<1, you will get 48. Does pv has io apic
>> ?
>>
>>YH
>>
> I'm not sure about the general case, but Xen does not (Jeremy correct me if
> I'm wrong).
>
> Unless I'm missing something (which I may well be; I'm new to this area of
> code), it seems more logical anyway to default back to the calculated
> system-specific value (NR_IRQS), instead of 32, which seems rather
> arbitrary.

can you try !CONFIG_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ and CONFIG_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ ?

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