Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:04:27 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] irq: handle irq0 special only on x86 |
| |
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 08:40:11AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/10/2009 12:24 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > Note, I fully agree to use 0 for NO_IRQ if you have an int-sized value > > that holds either NO_IRQ or a valid irq number. But in practise I'd not > > recommend to use this idiom. > > > > You're tilting at windmills about something that was settled long ago, > like it or not. And what about the patch, not judging my comments about irq0 in general?
AFAICT the check in try_misrouted_irq for irq being not zero does only make sense on x86, doesn't it?
The comment a few lines above the check reads:
But for 'irqfixup == 2' we also do it for handled interrupts if they are marked as IRQF_IRQPOLL (or for irq zero, which is the traditional PC timer interrupt.. Legacy)
So I think the patch is justified.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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/
| |