Re: [Xen-devel] NR_PIRQS vs. NR_IRQS

To:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] NR_PIRQS vs. NR_IRQS
From:	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:09:02 +0000
Cc:	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date:	Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:09:27 -0800
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<492444F4.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	AclKYSM5YYpftrZUEd2WhQAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] NR_PIRQS vs. NR_IRQS
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122



On 19/11/08 15:55, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Is fixing this actually any harder than just bumping NR_IRQS/NR_PIRQS in Xen
>> and NR_PIRQS in Linux? Have IRQS and VECTORS got somehow accidentally tied
>> together in Xen?
> 
> Unfortunately there was some mix-up. But I think I got this fixed (running
> a NR_IRQS=1024 hypervisor at the moment). I'd prefer to submit these
> patches only after your NR_PIRQS -> NR_IRQS change comes out of the
> staging tree though, to make sure it applies (and works) correctly on top
> of it.

Okay, I manually synced the tree. I've been meaning to do so for a while.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] NR_PIRQS vs. NR_IRQS