[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 18:37 +0000, David Howells wrote:
> (3) Having to translate a cookie for a specific IRQ means that the IRQ
> handling code will be slower and more complex, or is going to avoid the
> issue and be naughty and not deal with irq == NO_IRQ properly:
> The x86 PIC reports it as IRQ 0 having happened. In which case, by your
> argument, you _have_ to translate it: you're not allowed to pass NO_IRQ to
> setup_irq(), and you're not allowed to pass it to the interrupt handler -
> in this case timer_interrupt(). Doing otherwise is wrong, insane, etc...

This is true. If we're suddenly going to start pretending that IRQ 0
isn't a valid interrupt merely on the basis that "x86 doesn't use it"¹,
then we can't really go making an exception to allow us to use IRQ 0 on

¹ ...despite the fact that even that isn't true on legacy-free machines.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-22 20:06    [W:0.081 / U:35.072 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site