From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: handle irq0 special only on x86 Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 20:59:21 -0800 Message-ID: <4B4D5329.7050107@zytor.com> References: <1260350401-9858-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20100112155929.GA5615@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:48744 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750882Ab0AMFLU (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:11:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20100112155929.GA5615@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?VXdlIEtsZWluZS1Lw7ZuaWc=?= Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar On 01/12/2010 07:59 AM, Uwe Kleine-K=C3=B6nig wrote: > the feed-back I have got up to now wasn't helpfull. (Only some "irq0= is > evil---no it's not" discussion.) So what do you think? I admit the > #ifdef isn't nice, but if the semantic is OK I'm willing to rework it > into something more pretty. There was a debate on this a long time ago, and the outcome was that IR= Q 0 is invalid, across the kernel, and that it is up to each architecture to carry exceptions (like IRQ 0 for the timer interrupt in x86.) Hinc dictat Linus, so you would have to convince him before any of the arch maintainer could realistically even consider this change. -hpa --=20 H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.