> So you're saying that this mechanism forces the arch (that really > wants hard_irq_disable) to _#define_ hard_irq_disable (as a macro), > and if it implements it as an inline function, for example, then we're > screwed?
No. The idea is to do like we did for a few other things already (according to Linus request in fact), which is to write static inline void hard_irq_disable(void) { .../... } #define hard_irq_disable hard_irq_disable This is nicer than having an ARCH_HAS_xxx > 1. Introduce some CONFIG_WANTS_HARD_IRQ_DISABLE that is #defined (or > left undefined) by the arch/.../defconfig (depending upon whether or > not that arch implements a hard_irq_disable() for itself or not) > > 2. Then pull-in that code into include/linux/interrupt.h somehow > (through some known / fixed header file, or through asm/system.h, or > anyhow -- it doesn't really matter) > > 3. And: > > #ifndef CONFIG_WANTS_HARD_IRQ_DISABLE > #define hard_irq_disable() do { } while(0) > #endif Well, last time I tried that, Linus NACKed it in favor of what I described above. > We don't need to standardize on some particular arch-specific header > filename in this case. True, that's my main problem here. Though really only the archs who actually implement something special here need to be careful. Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/