* Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> At which point you might as well just do something like
>
> struct interrupt_descriptor {
> unsigned int nr:31;
> unsigned int valid:1;
> };
>
> and then people can just say
>
> if (!dev->irq.valid)
> return;
>
> instead, which is also readable, and where you simply cannot do the old
> "if (!dev->irq)" at all.
>
> The fact is, 0 _is_ special. Not just for hardware, but because 0 has
> a magical meaning as "false" in the C language.
yeah, i wanted to suggest this originally, but got distracted by the x86
quirk that 'IRQ#0' is often the i8253 timer interrupt.
is there any architecture where irq 0 is a legitimate setting that could
occur in drivers, and which would make NO_IRQ define of 0 non-practical?
If not (which i think is the case) then we should indeed standardize on
0. (in one way or another) It's not like any real driver will ever have
IRQ#0 even on a PC: the timer IRQ is 'known' to be routed to 0, and we
do a platform-specific setup_irq() on it. Not a good reason to abstract
the notion of 'no irq' away into a define.
in fact we dont even have to do the irq.valid thing, !dev->irq is
obviously readable.
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]
