Hi!
> > 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
Well, I still may want for example disk driver (with broken interrupt)
to hook onto irq#0 (timer). Better than no interrupts at all....
Pavel
--
Thanks, Sharp!
-
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]
