Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition

> If we make PCI_NO_IRQ be -1, then PC's need to remap 0 to that value. In 
> pretty much _exactly_ the same places that I suggest that the ppc code 
> should do it.

No. Remapping a valid number to something else means remapping at
runtime for all things that manipulate an irq : issuing it,
enable/disable callbacks, etc...

"Fixing" the definition of "no irq" on x86 means only changing the boot
code that sets up irq numbers, whatever it is.

Thus what solution is technically superior can be argued based on the
fact that your solution introduce overhead to code path that are hot
during normal kernel operations.

Ben.


-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: David Howells <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    • From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: test time-warps [was: Re: 2.6.14-rt13]
• Next by Date: Re: x86_64: apic id lift patch
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
• Next by thread: [PATCH 1/5] Don't overflow irq_desc array
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]