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

[Jeff Garzik]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 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.

Hey I'm the one who has kept the ball rolling since the day pt_regs were 
removed...  :)

	Jeff



-
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/