Re: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core

[Eric W. Biederman]

Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> Do you think set_irqfunc_irq() should be called at all the callsites of
>>> set_irq_regs(), or one the fix you mention is applied, do you think current
>>> model is sufficient?
>>
>> Good question.  At first glance I think the call sites are ok, that
>> is where we have the information now.  Non-genirq architectures needs
>> work of course.
>>
>> However given the weird poll case etc that either we need to take this
>> slow and delay this change until all of the drivers are fixed up, to
>> not need an irq parameter (as you suggested).  Or that we need to allow both
>> forms of irq handler to coexist temporarily.
>
> After diving in, in the past couple of hours, I'm pretty confident we simply do
> not need {get,set}_irqfunc_irq()

Sounds good.  That was my impression when I was looking at this kind of stuff.

Just so long as this doesn't slow us down so much we don't actually drop the
ball on this.

Eric
-
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/