[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH, RAW] IRQ: Maintain irq number globally rather than passing to IRQ handlers

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> But drivers rarely care about exact IRQ that caused their interrupt
> routines to be called.

Sure. But it's not a _cleanup_ as far as I can tell.

> Drivers that truly need to know IRQ can have it added to dev_id cookie
> and use separate dev_ids.

I'm not saying that what you describe is impossible. I'm just saying that
it's pointless.

What's wrong with passing in "irq"? It makes sense from a logical angle,
and it's something you kind of expect if you think of irq's as "signals
for the kernel" (which they almost literally used to be, why do you think
it was called "SA_SHIRQ" etc?).

So there is absolutely nothing wrong with passing in irq from a conceptual
or a practical angle, and some routines _do_ use it.

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: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.068 / U:8.680 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site