Re: userspace irq balancer

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:03:50PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> Does anyone have a patch to tear it out already?  Is the current proc
>> interface acceptable, or do we want a syscall interface like wli
>> suggests?

On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 09:00:18AM +0000, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> I have no problems with the proc interface; it's ascii so reasonably
> extendible in the future for, say, when 64 cpus on
> 32 bit linux get supported. It's also not THAT inefficient since my code
> only uses it when some binding changes, not all the time.

Sorry about that; I forgot about the /proc/ part and thought the thing
was based on system calls as it stood. I wouldn't want a redundant
interface to be added.

My current cpumask_t patches handle extending the /proc/ interface to
handle an arbitrary-sized cpumask, so I should have realized this.

-- wli