lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-20 01:17    [W:0.095 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site