use NR_IRQS for irq count
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 use NR_IRQS for irq count
Instead of artificially limiting irq numbers, use arch provided NR_IRQS
--- irqhook/irqhook_main.c | 16 +++++++--------- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
irqhook/irqhook_main.c +7 -9
@@ -31,15 +31,13 @@ #define ERROR(fmt, args...) printk("<1>"static spinlock_t irqh_lock;static wait_queue_head_t irqh_proc_list; -enum {NINTR =256 }; - -static DECLARE_BITMAP(pending, NINTR); -static DECLARE_BITMAP(handled, NINTR); +static DECLARE_BITMAP(pending, NR_IRQS); +static DECLARE_BITMAP(handled, NR_IRQS);#define irqh_on (which, bit) test_bit(bit, which)#define irqh_set (which, bit) set_bit(bit, which)#define irqh_clear (which, bit) clear_bit(bit, which) -#define irqh_ffs (which) find_first_bit(which, NINTR) +#define irqh_ffs (which) find_first_bit(which, NR_IRQS)static irqreturn_t irqh_interrupt (int irq,void *p)
@@ -92,7 +90,7 @@ irqh_dev_write(struct file *fp, const chif (pdp) {if (pci_enable_device (pdp))ERROR ("device not enabled\n" ); -if ((unsigned )(n = pdp->irq) >=NINTR ) { +if ((unsigned )(n = pdp->irq) >=NR_IRQS ) {ERROR ("device has invalid IRQ set\n" );return -EINVAL ; }
@@ -107,7 +105,7 @@ irqh_dev_write(struct file *fp, const chirqh_set (handled, n); goto done; } -if ((unsigned )n >=NINTR ) +if ((unsigned )n >=NR_IRQS )return -EINVAL ;if (arg[0 ] =='-' ) {if (pdp)
@@ -135,7 +133,7 @@ irqh_dev_read(struct file *fp, char *bufreturn -EINVAL ;spin_lock_irq (&irqh_lock);while (!signal_pending (current)) { -if ((n =irqh_ffs (pending)) <NINTR ) { +if ((n =irqh_ffs (pending)) <NR_IRQS ) {if ((m =sprintf (b,"%d" , n) +1 ) > size) m = size;if (copy_to_user (buf, b, m))
@@ -203,7 +201,7 @@ irqh_cleanup(void)DPRINTK ("ENTER\n" ); -while ((n =irqh_ffs (handled)) <NINTR ) { +while ((n =irqh_ffs (handled)) <NR_IRQS ) {irqh_clear (handled, n);free_irq (n, (void *)irqh_interrupt); }
Signature · 1 line
1.4.2
Amit Shah
AppliedQuoted 3 lines · * On Tuesday 08 April 2008 22:34:36 Glauber Costa wrote:
Instead of artificially limiting irq numbers, use arch provided
NR_IRQSSigned-off-by Glauber Costa <[email protected]>
Thanks, applied.
Going forward, we're going to use the in-kernel approach for interrupt injection (which already has this change). The irqhook module will stay around for testing / debugging purposes (will be used with -no-kvm-irqchip).
Amit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
Quoted 5 lines · Amit Shah
Quoted 3 lines · * On Tuesday 08 April 2008 22:34:36 Glauber Costa wrote:
Instead of artificially limiting irq numbers, use arch provided
NR_IRQSSigned-off-by Glauber Costa <[email protected]>
Quoted 7 lines
Thanks, applied.
Going forward, we're going to use the in-kernel approach for interrupt injection (which already has this change). The irqhook module will stay around for testing / debugging purposes (will be used with -no-kvm-irqchip).
Amit.
Is it already in your tree?
Quoted 8 lines · * On Wednesday 09 Apr 2008 17:41:10 Glauber Costa wrote:
Quoted 7 lines · Amit Shah
Quoted 3 lines · * On Tuesday 08 April 2008 22:34:36 Glauber Costa wrote:
Instead of artificially limiting irq numbers, use arch provided
NR_IRQSSigned-off-by Glauber Costa <[email protected]>Thanks, applied.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Going forward, we're going to use the in-kernel approach for interrupt injection (which already has this change). The irqhook module will stay around for testing / debugging purposes (will be used with -no-kvm-irqchip).
Amit.
Is it already in your tree?
Yes, it's in the new tree I just sent the link to.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
Quoted 8 lines · * On Wednesday 09 Apr 2008 17:41:10 Glauber Costa wrote:
Quoted 7 lines · Amit Shah
Quoted 3 lines · * On Tuesday 08 April 2008 22:34:36 Glauber Costa wrote:
Instead of artificially limiting irq numbers, use arch provided
NR_IRQSSigned-off-by Glauber Costa <[email protected]>Thanks, applied.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Going forward, we're going to use the in-kernel approach for interrupt injection (which already has this change). The irqhook module will stay around for testing / debugging purposes (will be used with -no-kvm-irqchip).
Amit.
Is it already in your tree?
Yes, it's in the new tree I just sent the link to.
Amit Shah
AppliedQuoted 3 lines · * On Tuesday 08 April 2008 22:34:36 Glauber Costa wrote:
Instead of artificially limiting irq numbers, use arch provided
NR_IRQSSigned-off-by Glauber Costa <[email protected]>
Thanks, applied.
Going forward, we're going to use the in-kernel approach for interrupt injection (which already has this change). The irqhook module will stay around for testing / debugging purposes (will be used with -no-kvm-irqchip).
Amit.