Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 
> > The fact is, 0 _is_ special. Not just for hardware, but because 0 has a 
> > magical meaning as "false" in the C language.
> 
> I don't agree, irq 0 has been a valid irq on a number of platforms for
> ages

The point is, it's _not_ a valid irq for 99.9% of all machines and drivers 
that have ever been tested.

Also, if you don't agree that 0 is special in the C language, then you're 
just strictly _wrong_. It's an undeniable fact that zero _is_ special.

		Linus
-
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/