Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core | Date | Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:13:35 -0600 |
| |
Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes: >>> Do you think set_irqfunc_irq() should be called at all the callsites of >>> set_irq_regs(), or one the fix you mention is applied, do you think current >>> model is sufficient? >> >> Good question. At first glance I think the call sites are ok, that >> is where we have the information now. Non-genirq architectures needs >> work of course. >> >> However given the weird poll case etc that either we need to take this >> slow and delay this change until all of the drivers are fixed up, to >> not need an irq parameter (as you suggested). Or that we need to allow both >> forms of irq handler to coexist temporarily. > > After diving in, in the past couple of hours, I'm pretty confident we simply do > not need {get,set}_irqfunc_irq()
Sounds good. That was my impression when I was looking at this kind of stuff.
Just so long as this doesn't slow us down so much we don't actually drop the ball on this.
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |