Re: [PATCH] irq: handle irq0 special only on x86

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 08:40:11AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/10/2009 12:24 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > 
> > Note, I fully agree to use 0 for NO_IRQ if you have an int-sized value
> > that holds either NO_IRQ or a valid irq number.  But in practise I'd not
> > recommend to use this idiom.
> > 
> 
> You're tilting at windmills about something that was settled long ago,
> like it or not.
And what about the patch, not judging my comments about irq0 in general?

AFAICT the check in try_misrouted_irq for irq being not zero does only
make sense on x86, doesn't it?

The comment a few lines above the check reads:

	But for 'irqfixup == 2' we also do it for handled interrupts if
	they are marked as IRQF_IRQPOLL (or for irq zero, which is the
	traditional PC timer interrupt.. Legacy)

So I think the patch is justified.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                              | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                    | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/