Re: [PATCH] genirq: ARM dyntick cleanup

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 17:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
> >  
> > +#ifndef handle_dynamic_tick
> > +# define handle_dynamic_tick(a)		do { } while (0)
> > +#endif
> > +
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >  static inline void set_native_irq_info(int irq, cpumask_t mask)
> >  {
> 
> This is not exactly a thing of beauty either.  It's much cleaner to use
> __attribute__((weak)), but that will add an empty call-return to everyone's
> interrupts.
> 
> The requirement "if you implement this then you must do so as a macro" is a
> bit regrettable.  The ARCH_HAS_HANDLE_DYNAMIC_TICK approach would eliminate
> that requirement.

This quirk should go away once we come around to generalize and
consolidate the dyntick stuff.

> btw, is this, from include/linux/irq.h:
> 
> /*
>  * Please do not include this file in generic code.  There is currently
>  * no requirement for any architecture to implement anything held
>  * within this file.
>  *
>  * Thanks. --rmk
>  */
> 
> still true?

I think what it means is that linux/irq.h must not be included in
drivers. drivers should include linux/interrupt.h instead.

	tglx


-
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/