Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 16:38:48 EST
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
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.
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/