Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-27 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:46:15 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote: > >>> > >> > >> yeah and THEY can put the defines in (RH used to do this fwiw as a > >> generic "this is a RH kernel" define) > >> > >> but afaik no distro vendor backports such an api change > >> nowadays... and h

Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-27 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:37:47 -0400 >> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Arjan van de Ven wrote: the other serious question is.. how is IRQ_HANDLER_V3 different from a #ifdef VERSION >= 2.6.24 . it's

Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-27 Thread Jeff Garzik
Arjan van de Ven wrote: On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:37:47 -0400 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Arjan van de Ven wrote: the other serious question is.. how is IRQ_HANDLER_V3 different from a #ifdef VERSION >= 2.6.24 . it's not really ;) Note my mention of backport -- kernel version isn't

Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-26 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:37:47 -0400 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > the other serious question is.. how is IRQ_HANDLER_V3 different > > from a #ifdef VERSION >= 2.6.24 . > > it's not really ;) > > Note my mention of backport -- kernel version isn't relevant

Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-26 Thread Jeff Garzik
Arjan van de Ven wrote: the other serious question is.. how is IRQ_HANDLER_V3 different from a #ifdef VERSION >= 2.6.24 . it's not really ;) Note my mention of backport -- kernel version isn't relevant when the various enterprise distros have random featuresets under random kernel version

Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-26 Thread Arjan van de Ven
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_H

Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-26 Thread Jeff Garzik
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

Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-26 Thread Arjan van de Ven
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 t

Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-26 Thread Jeff Garzik
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

Re: [PATCH 7/9] irq-remove: scsi driver trivial

2007-10-26 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:00:23 -0400 "Salyzyn, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ACK with comment ... Please don't top-post and then include 65 kbytes of unneeded goop. > This API changed in 2.4.23 switching to irqreturn_t, and 2.6.19 dropping > the struct_pt_regs argument, this is yet another AP