Re: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core

[Jeff Garzik]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.

'irq' argument is gone from the entire tree, save for

drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
drivers/scsi/sym53c416.c
drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c
drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
drivers/net/hamradio/scc.c
drivers/ide/ide-io.c

So I'd say the task is within reach :)

All the irq handler cleanups have been checked into branch 
'irq-cleanups', and 'irq-remove' branch is rebased on top of that.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/