[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1376017823.2087.41.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 20:10:23 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Kumar Gaurav <kumargauravgupta3@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, dan.carpenter@...cle.com,
emilio@...pez.com.ar, mugunthanvnm@...com, jg1.han@...sung.com,
hsweeten@...ionengravers.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net:ethernet:korina.c Removed IRQF_DISABLED
On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 08:30 +0530, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
> On Friday 09 August 2013 08:24 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 08:15 +0530, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
> >> On Friday 09 August 2013 08:09 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > []
> >>> And, maybe it'd be better to use IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE
> >>> instead of 0.
> >> I tried googling what to replace IRQF_DISABLED with but found nothing.
> >> In the patch fixed earlier (not by me) it was replaced with 0 so i did
> >> same. But from now on I'll use IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE. Thanks
> > Maybe that's not the right thing to do.
> > 0 is what's almost exclusively used.
> > IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE is only used a few times.
> > It's also a lot longer.
> >
> Sorry to poke back. But just want to confirm. I should use
> IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE and not 0 right?
I'd probably just use 0 unless someone wants to
chime in otherwise with some compelling argument.
It'd be pretty easy to mechanically change any
request_irq(,, 0,
to
request_irq(,, IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE,
if that's what people want.
(and all the other types of irq requests too)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists