Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:17:20 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] generic-hardirqs.patch, 2.6.9-rc1-bk14 |
| |
* Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> > i disagree. It's the same as the VFS model: we have generic_block_bmap() > > which a filesystem might or might not make use of. It's still around > > even if no filesystem makes use of it but do we care? I'd prefer fixing > > our linking logic to get rid of unused functions than complicating code > > and the architecture with conditionals. > > Completley different model. VFS supports lots of filesystem > implementation with one interface. IRQ code is a a single > implementation for each architecture.
not at all different model. 90% of the important drivers (no, drivers/s390 doesnt count) are shared between multiple architectures using the same interface: request_irq()/free_irq() and a handler with an enumerated irq vector.
> > is there any architecture that cannot make use of kernel/hardirq.c _at > > all_? > > s390 doesn't need it at all because it doesn't have the concept of hardirqs. > > At least arm{,26}, m68k{,nommu} and parisc and sparc{,64} use extremly > different models for irq handling
it could be a bit like nommu - a noirq model.
i agree with enabling an architecture to exclude _all_ of hardirq.c, but specifying per-function is excessive - if an architecture can make use of some of them then weak symbols will get rid of the rest.
Ingo - 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/
| |