lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:2.160 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site