On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 02:39:26AM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[email protected]>, Chris Wedgwood <[email protected]>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
[...]
> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
