Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Do you think set_irqfunc_irq() should be called at all the callsites of
>>> set_irq_regs(), or one the fix you mention is applied, do you think current
>>> model is sufficient?
>>
>> Good question. At first glance I think the call sites are ok, that
>> is where we have the information now. Non-genirq architectures needs
>> work of course.
>>
>> However given the weird poll case etc that either we need to take this
>> slow and delay this change until all of the drivers are fixed up, to
>> not need an irq parameter (as you suggested). Or that we need to allow both
>> forms of irq handler to coexist temporarily.
>
> After diving in, in the past couple of hours, I'm pretty confident we simply
> do
> not need {get,set}_irqfunc_irq()
Sounds good. That was my impression when I was looking at this kind of stuff.
Just so long as this doesn't slow us down so much we don't actually drop the
ball on this.
Eric
-
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/
