[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <471941CC.6020200@garzik.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:46:20 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> writes:
>
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> 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 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