On 5/10/07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> So you're saying that this mechanism forces the arch (that really
> wants hard_irq_disable) to _#define_ hard_irq_disable (as a macro),
> and if it implements it as an inline function, for example, then we're
> screwed?
No. The idea is to do like we did for a few other things already
(according to Linus request in fact), which is to write
static inline void hard_irq_disable(void)
{
.../...
}
#define hard_irq_disable hard_irq_disable
This is nicer than having an ARCH_HAS_xxx
Ok, that's reasonable, we don't want to end up with zillions of
ARCH_HAS_THIS and ARCH_HAS_THAT.
But then, what _is_ the problem with your approach above? An arch that
wants (and implements) hard_irq_disable will also #define that dummy
macro, so we just need to pull in the appropriate header (directly,
indirectly, anyhow -- we don't really care) into
include/linux/interrupt.h and then just do the exact same "#ifndef
hard_irq_disable" check that you're doing right now. I must be missing
something trivial (either that or I need to go and have a coffee :-)
because I don't see the possibility of hitting multiple _different_
definitions with the approach you mentioned just now.
-
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]
