Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 May 2005 19:11:42 -0700 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/1] [RFC] uml: add and use generic hw_controller_type->release |
| |
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 02:39:26AM +0200, blaisorblade@yahoo.it wrote:
> From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>, Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org> > CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
[...]
> This is heavily based on some work by Chris Wedgwood, which however > didn't get the patch merged for something I'd call a > "misunderstanding" (the need for this patch wasn't cleanly > explained, thus adding the generic hook was felt as undesirable).
Looks very reasonable to me and your explaination is much better than mine was :-)
> diff -puN kernel/irq/manage.c~uml-gen-irq-release kernel/irq/manage.c > --- linux-2.6.git/kernel/irq/manage.c~uml-gen-irq-release 2005-05-25 01:15:46.000000000 +0200 > +++ linux-2.6.git-paolo/kernel/irq/manage.c 2005-05-25 01:15:46.000000000 +0200 > @@ -255,6 +255,10 @@ void free_irq(unsigned int irq, void *de > > /* Found it - now remove it from the list of entries */ > *pp = action->next; > + > + if (desc->handler->release) > + desc->handler->release(irq, dev_id); > +
Because right now we know the *only* port that needs a release method is UML I wonder if we could do save a couple of bytes & cycles for everyone else by doing something like #ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_HAS_RELEASE, #endif around that and then letting the Kconfig magic set CONFIG_IRQ_HAS_RELEASE as required? If other arches need it thay can do the same and if eventually almost everyone does we can kill the #ifdef crud?
Longer term I wonder if some of the irq mechanics in UML couldn't end up being a bit more like the s390 stuff too? - 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/
| |