* Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > ok, understood. I'm wondering, why is there any need to do a PCI_NO_IRQ?
> > Why not just a generic NO_IRQ. It's not like we can or want to make them
> > different in the future. The interrupt vector number is a generic thing
> > that attaches to the platform via request_irq() - there is nothing 'PCI'
> > about it. So the PCI layer shouldnt pretend it has its own IRQ
> > abstraction - the two are forcibly joined. The same goes for
> > pci_valid_irq() - we should only have valid_irq(). Am i missing
> > anything?
>
> The last patch in this vein will delete PCI_NO_IRQ, replacing it with
> NO_IRQ. To make that final patch small, I wanted to introduce an
> abstraction that PCI drivers could use. Possibly it's not well
> thought out. Do you think we should put in the explicit compares
> against PCI_NO_IRQ as we find drivers that care and then do a big
> sweep when we think we've found them all?
i missed the detail that we want to have PCI_NO_IRQ at 0, while keeping
NO_IRQ at -1 - so the namespaces have to be separate, temporarily. So
your approach is fine.
Ingo
-
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]
