On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 15:07 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 23:18 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > plain text document attachment (powerpc-use-new-allocator.patch)
> > > Use the new functions and free the descriptor when the virq is
> > > destroyed.
> > 
> > Looks ok as a first pass, but we should go further and replace the
> > allocator we have in powerpc to use yours instead.
> > 
> > Then I should get rid of my big irq_map that maps virq to HW number &
> > domain pointers and instead put those in the irq data. Any objection to
> > me sticking some archdata there for that purpose ?
> 
> No, though if we can avoid another void pointer and have a sensible
> data structure for it would be nice.

Yes, I'm thinking about an arch defined structure like I did for struct
device.

Cheers,
Ben.

quoted text
> > That would make things much cleaner and in fact move one large step
> > toward being able to make powerpc virq scheme generic, which seems to be
> > a good idea from what I've heard :-)
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx
> --
> 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/


--
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/