On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:22:07AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 08:17:47AM -0600, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 01:49:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef ARCH_HAS_IRQ_PER_CPU
> > > > + if (new->flags & SA_PERCPU_IRQ)
> > > > + desc->status |= IRQ_PER_CPU;
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > OK, five architectures define ARCH_HAS_IRQ_PER_CPU but only one of them
> > > defines SA_PERCPU_IRQ. Giving up.
> >
> > Could we do the following (at least for now)?:
> >
> > +#if defined(ARCH_HAS_IRQ_PER_CPU) && defined(SA_PERCPU_IRQ)
> > + if (new->flags & SA_PERCPU_IRQ)
> > + desc->status |= IRQ_PER_CPU;
> > +#endif
>
> Why not just
>
> #ifdef SA_PERCPU_IRQ
> if (new->flags & SA_PERCPU_IRQ)
> desc->status |= IRQ_PER_CPU;
> #endif
Fine with me. I was simply maintaining the ARCH_HAS_IRQ_PER_CPU convention.
-
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]
