* Re: [PATCH] irq: handle irq0 special only on x86
[not found] <1260350401-9858-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
@ 2010-01-12 15:59 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-01-13 4:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2010-01-12 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: x86, linux-arch
Cc: linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin
Hello,
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 10:20:01AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> I just noticed this when digging in the irq handling. At least for arm
> this doesn't make sense. Not sure if x86 is the only arch this test
> is valid for, but probably it is.
... so I added linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
> ---
> kernel/irq/spurious.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/spurious.c b/kernel/irq/spurious.c
> index 22b0a6e..4996b66 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/spurious.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/spurious.c
> @@ -199,8 +199,10 @@ try_misrouted_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc,
> if (irqfixup < 2)
> return 0;
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_X86)
> if (!irq)
> return 1;
> +#endif
>
> /*
> * Since we don't get the descriptor lock, "action" can
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.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread