[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <epsfi2t2dkegcm339i310e6k445k2klqt9@4ax.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:44:22 -0700
From: Bill Waddington <william.waddington@...zmo.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] IRQ: Maintain regs pointer globally rather than passing to IRQ handlers
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 10:52:19 UTC, in fa.linux.kernel Ingo Molnar
wrote:
>
>* Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org> wrote:
>
>> > I don't personally mind the patch, I just wanted to bring that issue
>> > up.
>>
>> yup. Perhaps we could add
>>
>> #define IRQ_HANDLERS_DONT_USE_PTREGS
>>
>> so that out-of-tree drivers can reliably do their ifdefing.
>
>i'd suggest we do something like:
>
> #define __PT_REGS
>
>so that backportable drivers can do:
>
> static irqreturn_t irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id __PT_REGS)
>
>instead of an #ifdef jungle. Older kernel bases can define __PT_REGS in
>their interrupt.h (or in the backported driver's header, in one place)
>
> #ifndef __PT_REGS
> # define __PT_REGS , struct pt_regs *regs
> #endif
>
>this would minimize the direct impact in the source-code.
Has this or something like it been sprinkled with penguin pee? I'm
one of those misguided out-of-tree maintainers. I dont' use pt_regs
but like warning-free compiles - and a single code module when
possible.
Thanks,
Bill
--
William D Waddington
william.waddington@...zmo.com
"Even bugs...are unexpected signposts on
the long road of creativity..." - Ken Burtch
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists