| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:59:39 +0100 (CET) From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@...gutronix.de> To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, i2c@...sensors.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Define a NO_GPIO macro to compare against and to use as an invalid GPIO David, you convinced me:-) I'll redo the patch. Just one comment: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, David Brownell wrote: > On Saturday 09 February 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > And when those platforms share drivers, problems > > arise. And the simple and efficient NO_IRQ notion, that would fis those > > problems nicely, cannot seem to establish itself. > > Inertia is one of the problems there ... plus, the only > obvious advantage of "#define NO_IRQ 0" is that it makes > it easier to be lazy about initialization. > > Plus, changing platforms to use that convention means they > mostly need to adopt an *unnatural* step of mapping from the > hardware IRQ numbers (which often start at zero, as they do > on one system I just ssh'd into) to some "logical" ID. > Even if you believe that's worthwhile, it's work; and it > could easily break something. NO_IRQ doesn't have to be 0. Platforms, where 0 is a valid number can use -1, or 256, or whatever they want:-) Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski -- 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