Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:53:29 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core |
| |
Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes: > >> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> 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.
'irq' argument is gone from the entire tree, save for
drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c drivers/scsi/sym53c416.c drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c drivers/net/hamradio/scc.c drivers/ide/ide-io.c
So I'd say the task is within reach :)
All the irq handler cleanups have been checked into branch 'irq-cleanups', and 'irq-remove' branch is rebased on top of that.
Jeff
- 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/
| |