[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

> > and then people can just say
> >
> > if (!dev->irq.valid)
> > return;
> >
> > instead, which is also readable, and where you simply cannot do the old
> > "if (!dev->irq)" at all.
> >
> > The fact is, 0 _is_ special. Not just for hardware, but because 0 has
> > a magical meaning as "false" in the C language.
> yeah, i wanted to suggest this originally, but got distracted by the x86
> quirk that 'IRQ#0' is often the i8253 timer interrupt.
> is there any architecture where irq 0 is a legitimate setting that could
> occur in drivers, and which would make NO_IRQ define of 0 non-practical?
> If not (which i think is the case) then we should indeed standardize on
> 0. (in one way or another) It's not like any real driver will ever have
> IRQ#0 even on a PC: the timer IRQ is 'known' to be routed to 0, and we

Well, I still may want for example disk driver (with broken interrupt)
to hook onto irq#0 (timer). Better than no interrupts at all....

Thanks, Sharp!
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: 2005-11-23 03:44    [W:0.096 / U:7.164 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site