From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964861AbVLVN7f (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:59:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965032AbVLVN7f (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:59:35 -0500 Received: from omx1-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.179.11]:57321 "EHLO omx1.americas.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964861AbVLVN7e (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:59:34 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:59:24 -0600 From: Mark Maule To: Christoph Hellwig , Matthew Wilcox , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tony Luck Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] msi vector targeting abstractions Message-ID: <20051222135924.GA24232@sgi.com> References: <20051221184337.5003.85653.32527@attica.americas.sgi.com> <20051221184348.5003.7540.53186@attica.americas.sgi.com> <20051221190558.GD2361@parisc-linux.org> <20051221193300.GK9920@sgi.com> <20051222103606.GA29608@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051222103606.GA29608@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:36:06AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Mainly I did it this way 'cause msg_address seems to be geared toward specific > > hw (apic?). In the case of altix interrupt hw, we don't know about > > dest_mode et. al., but only care about the raw address. > > In that case you should probably kill the struct as I suggested and only > keep the shift & mask defines in the file for the apic hw implementation. Yes, that's what I've done (mostly) for the next patch round. Still haven't killed the struct, but at least its isolated to apic code now. Mark