Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:15:39 +0000 |
| |
On Maw, 2005-11-22 at 11:13 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > Yes, there are drivers which are currently broken and assume irq 0 is > 'no irq'. They are broken. Let's just fix them and not continue the > brain-damage.
0 in the Linux kernel has always meant 'no IRQ' and it makes it natural to express in C (and on some cpus more efficient too).
What if my hardware has an IRQ -1 ;)
- 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/
| |