Re: [PATCH] net:ethernet:korina.c Removed IRQF_DISABLED

[Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>]

On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 08:30 +0530, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
> On Friday 09 August 2013 08:24 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 08:15 +0530, Kumar Gaurav wrote:
> >> On Friday 09 August 2013 08:09 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> > []
> >>> And, maybe it'd be better to use IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE
> >>> instead of 0.
> >> I tried googling what to replace IRQF_DISABLED with but found nothing.
> >> In the patch fixed earlier (not by me) it was replaced with 0 so i did
> >> same. But from now on I'll use IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE. Thanks
> > Maybe that's not the right thing to do.
> > 0 is what's almost exclusively used.
> > IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE is only used a few times.
> > It's also a lot longer.
> >
> Sorry to poke back. But just want to confirm. I should use 
> IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE and not 0 right?

I'd probably just use 0 unless someone wants to
chime in otherwise with some compelling argument.

It'd be pretty easy to mechanically change any
	request_irq(,, 0,
to
	request_irq(,, IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE,
if that's what people want.

(and all the other types of irq requests too)