[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1178786761.14928.232.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:46:01 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Add hard_irq_disable()
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 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