On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:03:12AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > In short: NO_IRQ _is_ 0. Always has been. It's the only sane value. And > btw, there is no need for that #define at all, exactly because the way you > test for "is this no irq" is by doing "!dev->irq". Could you at least take the first patch that checks that we don't go outside the bounds of the irq_desc array? - 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:
- 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: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Paul Mackerras <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- Prev by Date: [PATCH 1/2] flatmem split out memory model
- Next by Date: Re: test time-warps [was: Re: 2.6.14-rt13]
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
- Index(es):
 |