From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:53706 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933242AbXCALCz (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:02:55 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC] killing the NR_IRQS arrays. From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: References: <200702280141.51420.arnd@arndb.de> <200702281324.19884.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:47:27 +0100 Message-Id: <1172746048.11949.103.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Arjan van de Ven , Ingo Molnar , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Alan Cox , Thomas Gleixner List-ID: > > Similarly, in a pci device, one could imagine that the > > struct pci_driver contains a irq_handler_t member that > > is registered from the pci_device_probe() function > > if present. > > Yes. There is some potential there. Although we would have to go > through an extra hoop to make it a pci specific handler type. Beware with that approach though. If you are on a shared IRQ line, when do you start getting called when an IRQ happen (possibly for the "other" device) ? As soon as you are bound to the device ? But that means potentially before the driver internal data structures are fully initialized... I like the driver having in control the "hooking" of the irq handler, thus, when it starts being capable of handling interrupts (even if they aren't initiated by that driver's device).