On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > oh well [*]. Then it's gotta be the !dev->irq.valid thing i guess. No it's not. The ppc PCI probing could trivilly just turn a 0 into 256 (or equivalent), and mask off the low 7 bits when installing the handler. They know the interrupt is _really_ 0 from other sources (ie they have a different firmware, with explicit callbacks, and/or hardcoded knowledge). Linus - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- References:
- [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
- [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- Prev by Date: Re: virtual OSS devices [for making selfish apps happy]
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- Index(es):
![]() |