Re: [git patch] free_irq() fixes

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 04:52:44PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > [...]
> > > 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.
> 
> Ok, that's just not going to happen.
> 
> What's the upside? Really?
> 
> I can tell you the downsides:
>  - tons of huge patches with ugly churn
>...

If it goes like the regs removal in one big patch around -rc1 into your 
tree this shouldn't be a problem.

> 		Linus

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

--
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/