From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:63243 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261516AbULFNbV (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:31:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:31:15 +0000 From: Russell King Subject: Re: mask_irq Message-ID: <20041206133115.A19395@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20041206124553.GM15450@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041206124553.GM15450@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>; from matthew@wil.cx on Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:45:53PM +0000 Sender: Russell King To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:45:53PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > I don't know when it happened, but mask_irq() is no longer required > as an interface. The following architectures still define and/or use > it internally: > > arm arm26 cris mips parisc ppc ppc64 sh sh64 x86_64 I guess this is a result of a quick grep without looking at the results. I think you'll find that mask_irq() isn't an interface ARM architectures export, but is part of a function name, eg, dummy_mask_unmask_irq(). -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/ 2.6 Serial core