On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:12:40 -0400 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:47:58 -0400 > > Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Andrew Morton wrote: > >>> That was a goofup. I proposed that we should add a #define > >>> TWO_ARG_IRQ_HANDLERS (or whatever) and I think I actually wrote > >>> the patch, but it got lost. > >>> > >>> I agree it would be a kind thing to do in this case. > > > >> > >> Yep, I was thinking that including > >> > >> #define IRQ_HANDLER_V3 > >> > >> would be a good idea. > >> > > > > it sets a certain precedent though.... we don't do this for the 500 > > other API changes we do each release (see stable-api-nonsense)... so > > this one is mostly arbitrary picked out > > We do for include/linux/netdevice.h, see HAVE_xxx -- and we should do > it because the last irq handler change was a pain for backports, and > this makes life easier for the backporters. irq handling is probably > far more global than any other kernel API except kmalloc() to be honest, in a perfect world we turn this around, and have the older kernels that people want to backport to have the LEGACY_IRQ_HANDLER defines... not accumulating going forward.... (in fact, with what you're proposing you'll always get #ifndef's..) the other serious question is.. how is IRQ_HANDLER_V3 different from a #ifdef VERSION >= 2.6.24 ..... it's not really ;) -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org - 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/
