From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Mosberger Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 22:57:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch] 2.4.25-pre8, 2.6.2-rc2 mca.c - pass irq_safe around Message-Id: <16425.25037.798727.698612@napali.hpl.hp.com> List-Id: References: <9337.1076049423@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <9337.1076049423@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:37:03 +1100, Keith Owens said: Keith> The patch is against 2.4.25-pre8 bk. It also applies to Keith> 2.6.2-rc2 bk (with some fuzz and offsets), after applying my Keith> previous 6 patches to 2.6.2-rc2 mca.c. Keith> Patches from Ben Woodward to calculate irq_safe once and pass Keith> it around. I applied the patch but I'm wondering what happens if someone adds a new SAL_INFO_TYPE which isn't irq-safe. Wouldn't it be safer to flip things around and check sal_info_type against known-to-be-safe values? --david