Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 09:03:12AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In short: NO_IRQ _is_ 0. Always has been. It's the only sane value. And 
> btw, there is no need for that #define at all, exactly because the way you 
> test for "is this no irq" is by doing "!dev->irq".

Could you at least take the first patch that checks that we don't go
outside the bounds of the irq_desc array?
-
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/