Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 13:38 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

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

It is a valid irq for a wide range of embedded devices.

> 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.

And ? I really don't agree that just because 0 "looks kewl", we should
enforce that and add some dodgy remapping all over the place.

It's not like it was difficult to fix the few drivers that make bogus
assumptions and use NO_IRQ instead ...

Ben.


-
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/