Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

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 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/