On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 13:24 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> 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.
Sure, the only problem is that I don't want to pull asm/hw_irq.h
directly from linux/interrupts.h unless all arch maintainers around
verify it's ok, because those headers are a bit of a can of worm at the
moment ...
So I'd rather say that if your arch has a custom version of
hard_irq_disable(), make sure that asm/system.h pulls it in a way or
another. And that's already included.
Ben.
-
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]
