[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:0.020 / U:85.192 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site