[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080807002638.04699eac@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 00:26:38 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Cc: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Dhaval Giani" <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Mike Travis" <travis@....com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/33] dyn_array and nr_irqs support v4
On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:35:55 -0700
ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> writes:
>
> >> My suggestion for a non-breaking path:
> >> - Kill NR_IRQS in then generic code.
> >> With Alan's serial patch and my kstat patch it looks like we have
> >> the worst of that.
> >
> > will use Alan's patch.at first.
> > already reused your patch about kstat. and move kstat_irqs to irq_desc.
>
> Part of what I am thinking is that there should never be a patch
> that does s/NR_IRQS/nr_irqs/ that is just pointless noise.
>
> Either we need a new abstraction like for_each_irq or to update the
> code to the current best practices.
>
> Which means the patches should be uncontroversial and mergeble on their
> own with no weird dependencies.
A lot of these are range checks so could be replaced by a single
valid_irq(irq) test.
Alan
--
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