Re: [git patch] free_irq() fixes
From: Jeff Garzik
Date: Tue Apr 22 2008 - 19:49:18 EST
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
(note, for mwave I couldn't use pSettings, since that might fail the ambiguity
test)
Ok, so using the pointer to inside a specific pSettings field is fine.
But can you also explain to me why that insane driver does this:
static irqreturn_t UartInterrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
{
- int irqno = (int)(unsigned long) dev_id;
+ unsigned short *irqno = dev_id;
...
*irqno, dev_id);
instead of just ignoring "dev_id" entirely, and then just using that "irq"
argument directly?
That was noted briefly in the push email:
In my review of every single interrupt handler in the Linux, while
working on another project (jgarzik/misc-2.6.git#irq-remove), I've
[...]
Since the #irq-remove project involves removal of the 'irq' argument
from interrupt handlers (unused 99.8% of the time),
[...]
After going over every irq handler (read: almost every driver in the
kernel, plus arch code), my #irq-remove branch has confirmed what my gut
already knew -- the 'irq' argument is completely unused for almost every
driver. So I was taking that line of thought as far as it went.
I found less than 10 cases (out of ~1100) that actually did something
useful with the value _and_ did not have the value already stashed
somewhere in a reached data structure.
Those cases are easily handled a la pt_regs change -- via a
get_irqfunc_irq() -- as a quick fix, or the preferred cleanup would be
to pass info properly via the standard method for passing info to irq
handlers: dev_id
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/