On 5/10/07, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
Ok, that's reasonable, we don't want to end up with zillions of ARCH_HAS_THIS and ARCH_HAS_THAT. But then, what _is_ the problem with your approach above? An arch that wants (and implements) hard_irq_disable will also #define that dummy macro, so we just need to pull in the appropriate header (directly, indirectly, anyhow -- we don't really care) into include/linux/interrupt.h and then just do the exact same "#ifndef hard_irq_disable" check that you're doing right now. I must be missing something trivial (either that or I need to go and have a coffee :-) because I don't see the possibility of hitting multiple _different_ definitions with the approach you mentioned just now. - 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/