From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: sam@ravnborg.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
yinghai@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: irqnr fallout in gpiolib on sparc32
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:02:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090107130213.GB3529@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090106.082913.97432854.davem@davemloft.net>
* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:57:04 +0100
>
> > Sparc32 on the other hand had a clean IRQ layer long before x86 found its
> > desire for a clean genirq layer - so genirq is a nuisance for Sparc32 at
> > best and it deserves none of the not nice actions. What i am hoping for is
> > that perhaps the Sparc unification changed that equation.
>
> Not really, the unificiation didn't change much in this area. [...]
Yeah, i mean - "changed the equation" psychologically, the same way it did
it on x86.
There's now two files close to each other in the namespace:
earth4:~/tip> ls -l arch/sparc/kernel/irq*.c
-rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo 16122 2009-01-07 13:50 arch/sparc/kernel/irq_32.c
-rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo 26556 2009-01-07 12:34 arch/sparc/kernel/irq_64.c
Each of them crying out loud to be unified. Every time you open irq_64.c
you'll think "why that ugly _64.c postfix, shouldnt this be irq.c
instead?" ;-)
That kind of gentle pressure to unify comes straight from the fact that
there's _32.c and _64.c postfixes around and the postfixes mess up command
completion when those files are opened, so we notice the non-unified-ness
again and again.
At least this was what drove many of the x86 unifications. (Mind you,
irq_32/irq_64.c is still not fully unified on x86 ;)
> [...] That doesn't change the fact that I do intend to genirq'ify
> sparc32 some time soon. :-)
Cool! :-)
Ingo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: sam@ravnborg.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com,
yinghai@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: irqnr fallout in gpiolib on sparc32
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:02:13 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090107130213.GB3529@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090106.082913.97432854.davem@davemloft.net>
* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:57:04 +0100
>
> > Sparc32 on the other hand had a clean IRQ layer long before x86 found its
> > desire for a clean genirq layer - so genirq is a nuisance for Sparc32 at
> > best and it deserves none of the not nice actions. What i am hoping for is
> > that perhaps the Sparc unification changed that equation.
>
> Not really, the unificiation didn't change much in this area. [...]
Yeah, i mean - "changed the equation" psychologically, the same way it did
it on x86.
There's now two files close to each other in the namespace:
earth4:~/tip> ls -l arch/sparc/kernel/irq*.c
-rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo 16122 2009-01-07 13:50 arch/sparc/kernel/irq_32.c
-rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo 26556 2009-01-07 12:34 arch/sparc/kernel/irq_64.c
Each of them crying out loud to be unified. Every time you open irq_64.c
you'll think "why that ugly _64.c postfix, shouldnt this be irq.c
instead?" ;-)
That kind of gentle pressure to unify comes straight from the fact that
there's _32.c and _64.c postfixes around and the postfixes mess up command
completion when those files are opened, so we notice the non-unified-ness
again and again.
At least this was what drove many of the x86 unifications. (Mind you,
irq_32/irq_64.c is still not fully unified on x86 ;)
> [...] That doesn't change the fact that I do intend to genirq'ify
> sparc32 some time soon. :-)
Cool! :-)
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-07 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-05 13:29 irqnr fallout in gpiolib on sparc32 Sam Ravnborg
2009-01-05 13:29 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-01-05 13:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-05 13:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-05 13:48 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-01-05 13:48 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-01-05 13:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-05 13:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-05 20:37 ` David Miller
2009-01-05 20:37 ` David Miller
2009-01-06 12:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-06 12:57 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-06 16:29 ` David Miller
2009-01-06 16:29 ` David Miller
2009-01-07 13:02 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-01-07 13:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-07 13:34 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-01-07 13:34 ` Sam Ravnborg
2009-01-07 21:08 ` David Miller
2009-01-07 21:08 ` David Miller
2009-01-06 23:43 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-01-06 23:43 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090107130213.GB3529@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sam@ravnborg.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.