Re: [patch] generic-hardirqs.patch, 2.6.9-rc1-bk14

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 03:17:20PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> not at all different model. 90% of the important drivers (no,
> drivers/s390 doesnt count) are shared between multiple architectures
> using the same interface: request_irq()/free_irq() and a handler with an
> enumerated irq vector.

Sure, but that's not the level we're talking about.  The function we talk
about compare to the vfs_* routines (when looking at the arches with
i386-style generic irq code)(

> > s390 doesn't need it at all because it doesn't have the concept of hardirqs.
> > 
> > At least arm{,26}, m68k{,nommu} and parisc and sparc{,64} use extremly
> > different models for irq handling
> 
> it could be a bit like nommu - a noirq model.
> 
> i agree with enabling an architecture to exclude _all_ of hardirq.c, but 
> specifying per-function is excessive - if an architecture can make use 
> of some of them then weak symbols will get rid of the rest.

I never wanted to exclude individual functions.  But when you look at
arch/*/kernel/irq.c I don't see a reason for doing it at all.  It makes
sense to make this an all or nothing switch.