[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    Linus Torvalds <> wrote:

    > The fact is, 0 _is_ "no interrupt". Always has been.

    The fact that it always has been doesn't make it correct; and the fact that
    the C particularly likes zeros is only optimisable on some hardware. On RISC
    processors where you can't test memory directly, it seems to be the case that
    any small positive or negative integer is as good as zero; for instance, in

    ldi @(gr8,#0),gr4 # doesn't set the condition codes
    subicc gr4,#-1,gr0,icc0 # cmp to -1, result to immutable gr0
    beq icc0,#0,it_was_unset

    I suspect a lot of RISC archs will be like this. It's only certain ones like
    M68K and x86 where you can test memory directly:

    testl (%eax)
    je it_was_unset

    that it's usefully optimisable, and in those cases it might be possible to do
    this sort of thing:

    cmpl $-1,(%eax)
    je it_was_unset

    though the instruction will be longer.

    > In short: NO_IRQ _is_ 0. Always has been.

    So what? That hasn't stopped you imposing a blanket change before.

    > It's the only sane value.

    Has anyone ever accused you of being sane? :-)

    > Anybody who does anything else is a bug waiting to happen.

    My three main concerns are this:

    (1) Changing the no-irq value away from zero is going to cause problems in
    certain drivers that assume they can do !dev->irq. I'd like my drivers to
    work without me having to do anything to them, but there's a lot of
    rubbish drivers out there, even allowing for this. I suspect this is a
    tiny part of the problem, and easily fixed in the drivers in the kernel.

    (2) 0 is a valid IRQ in lots of places, including x86. IIRC it is permissible
    for ISAPNP and PNP-BIOS (and presumably ACPI) to indicate something is
    attached to IRQ 0 (usually only the timer is there though, but it can be
    possible to reconfigure that).

    Fortunately, for the FRV arch IRQ 0 is not used - level 0 in the interrupt
    mask register permits all interrupts; and for the AM33 arch, whilst there
    is an IRQ 0, that's the NMI interrupt and so has to be handled specially

    The only reason NO_IRQ on FRV is -1 is that I copied the code from
    elsewhere. It could easily be changed to 0.

    (3) Having to translate a cookie for a specific IRQ means that the IRQ
    handling code will be slower and more complex, or is going to avoid the
    issue and be naughty and not deal with irq == NO_IRQ properly:

    The x86 PIC reports it as IRQ 0 having happened. In which case, by your
    argument, you _have_ to translate it: you're not allowed to pass NO_IRQ to
    setup_irq(), and you're not allowed to pass it to the interrupt handler -
    in this case timer_interrupt(). Doing otherwise is wrong, insane, etc...

    It may even be possible to simplify the x86/x86_64 arch code by making IRQ
    0 a normal IRQ instead of something special.

    The only argument for not doing so is that it's hidden inside the arch
    where it can't be seen... apart from by those looking for examples of good
    code to copy (the i386 arch is used as a model for a lot of things).

    I'd like to see dev->irq as a pointer to a structure. As you say, the number is
    a cookie, but it's also very much dependent on the bus, so why shouldn't it be
    associated with the bus in the same way I/O ports and memory ranges are? I'd
    also like to see it arranged as a tree: with FRV, I can add extra PIC's into
    the tree, thus expanding the IRQ space available dynamically.

    However, as far as the current issue goes, I've no concerns for FRV or AM33
    should NO_IRQ become 0.

    Whatever you decide to do *please* document this in Documentation/ somewhere!
    Then you have a "standard" at which to point and say "so it is written". At the
    moment it's documented in the code, and that is inconsistent, perhaps

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-11-22 19:41    [W:0.024 / U:11.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site