Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> writes:
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()
Sounds good. That was my impression when I was looking at this kind of stuff.
Just so long as this doesn't slow us down so much we don't actually drop the
ball on this.
Hey I'm the one who has kept the ball rolling since the day pt_regs were
removed... :)
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]
