Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition

From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 17:18:19 EST

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> 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.

That's not at all what I'm saying.


If we make PCI_NO_IRQ be -1, then PC's need to remap 0 to that value. In
pretty much _exactly_ the same places that I suggest that the ppc code
should do it.

And there are several thousand times more PC's than there are other

Got it?

Everybody who argues for PCI_NO_IRQ being -1 is arguing for all the same
things I argue that the ppc port should do, except they _also_ argue that
we should break now-working setups.

Is that so hard to understand? -1 is no different from 0, except it is in
many way sprovably _inferior_. Both need some mapping. But the -1 case
needs more of it, _and_ will result in a inferior end result (because the
nice "!dev->pci" thing suddenly doesn't work).

See? You're arguing for a technically inferior solution.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at