Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> writes:
Do you think set_irqfunc_irq() should be called at all the callsites of
set_irq_regs(), or one the fix you mention is applied, do you think current
model is sufficient?
Good question. At first glance I think the call sites are ok, that
is where we have the information now. Non-genirq architectures needs
work of course.
However given the weird poll case etc that either we need to take this
slow and delay this change until all of the drivers are fixed up, to
not need an irq parameter (as you suggested). Or that we need to
allow both forms of irq handler to coexist temporarily.
After diving in, in the past couple of hours, I'm pretty confident we
simply do not need {get,set}_irqfunc_irq()
Jeff
-
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]
