Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

On Maw, 2005-11-22 at 11:13 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Yes, there are drivers which are currently broken and assume irq 0 is
> 'no irq'. They are broken. Let's just fix them and not continue the
> brain-damage.

0 in the Linux kernel has always meant 'no IRQ' and it makes it natural
to express in C (and on some cpus more efficient too).

What if my hardware has an IRQ -1 ;)

-
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/