[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090310153332.GB23463@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:33:32 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lethal@...ux-sh.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Free setup_irq() interrupt V2
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > > From: Magnus Damm <damm@...l.co.jp>
> > > > This patch adds a __free_irq() function for releasing
> > > > interrupts requested with setup_irq().
> > >
> > > I think there is a simpler solution than adding yet another
> > > function for the confusion of driver writers. See below.
> >
> > Uhm, i asked for that solution ;-)
>
> Uhm, I missed that :)
>
> > To reduce the confusion in generic code with yet another IRQF flag.
>
> Hmm. I still prefer a solution which confuses the few people hacking
> on kernel/irq/* instead of having another function which confuses the
> already confused driver writers.
>
> I can live with the two functions as well, but then please let us use
> a function name which is more intuitive than __free_irq().
>
> setup_irq() -> remove_irq()
> request_irq() -> free_irq()
Sure, that's fine with me.
I almost suggested shutdown_irq() to Magnus originally, then
went for __free_irq().
Ingo
--
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