[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <> writes:
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Jeff Garzik <> writes:
>>>> Do you think set_irqfunc_irq() should be called at all the callsites of
>>>> set_irq_regs(), or one the fix you mention is applied, do you think current
>>>> model is sufficient?
>>> Good question. At first glance I think the call sites are ok, that
>>> is where we have the information now. Non-genirq architectures needs
>>> work of course.
>>> However given the weird poll case etc that either we need to take this
>>> slow and delay this change until all of the drivers are fixed up, to
>>> not need an irq parameter (as you suggested). Or that we need to allow both
>>> forms of irq handler to coexist temporarily.
>> After diving in, in the past couple of hours, I'm pretty confident we simply do
>> not need {get,set}_irqfunc_irq()
> Sounds good. That was my impression when I was looking at this kind of stuff.
> Just so long as this doesn't slow us down so much we don't actually drop the
> ball on this.

Hey I'm the one who has kept the ball rolling since the day pt_regs were
removed... :)


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: 2007-10-20 01:49    [W:0.049 / U:6.468 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site