[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4810B361.8000305@garzik.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:20:49 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rmk@....linux.org.uk,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [git patch] free_irq() fixes
Alan Cox wrote:
> Sparc32 had this and it was very ugly. However if you don't pass in the
> IRQ then people will store the irq value privately and things like
> request_irq can deal with numeric interrupts and the like as before while
> new interfaces for MSI can deal in MSI objects whatever they end up like.
Yes, and on a related note...
_Today_ drivers _already_ store the irq value privately, because they must:
Logic dictates they must do so because all other functions in the driver
do not have an 'irq' argument, but do need to call things (free_irq,
disable_irq) that take an irq number argument.
That is one of my key design objections to passing 'int' to an irq handler:
Every modern driver _must_ store the irq value anyway -- and typically
this is done automatically in struct device or struct pci_dev resources,
so the driver writer need not bother with storing it themselves.
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