Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:20:02 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: [patch] generic-hardirqs.patch, 2.6.9-rc1-bk14 |
| |
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 03:17:20PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > 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.
Sure, but that's not the level we're talking about. The function we talk about compare to the vfs_* routines (when looking at the arches with i386-style generic irq code)(
> > 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.
I never wanted to exclude individual functions. But when you look at arch/*/kernel/irq.c I don't see a reason for doing it at all. It makes sense to make this an all or nothing switch.
- 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/
| |