From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:00:28 -0800 Received: from pobox.sibyte.com ([208.12.96.20]:19472 "HELO pobox.sibyte.com") by oss.sgi.com with SMTP id ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:00:21 -0800 Received: from postal.sibyte.com (moat.sibyte.com [208.12.96.21]) by pobox.sibyte.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 02982205FE; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:00:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from SMTP agent by mail gateway Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:54:10 -0800 Received: from plugh.sibyte.com (plugh.sibyte.com [10.21.64.158]) by postal.sibyte.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ECEE1595F; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:00:15 -0800 (PST) Received: by plugh.sibyte.com (Postfix, from userid 61017) id 47824686D; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:01:19 -0800 (PST) From: Justin Carlson Reply-To: carlson@sibyte.com Organization: Sibyte To: Pete Popov , "linux-mips@oss.sgi.com" Subject: Re: irq.c Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:56:50 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.29] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3A843C2D.525643E7@mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <3A843C2D.525643E7@mvista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0102091101190P.01909@plugh.sibyte.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing On Fri, 09 Feb 2001, Pete Popov wrote: > There's a dozen copies of "irq.c", and a few more files that do the same > thing but are named differently. The irq.c in arch/mips/kernel doesn't > seem to be used by any system. The PowerPC also has lots of variants > also, but I believe they have a single irq.c file that all systems use. > So I guess my question is, is anyone using arch/mips/kernel/irq.c, and > does everyone plan on moving to that file (which seems like the right > thing to do). > I've noticed that arch/i386/kernel/irq.c has this note on it: /* * (mostly architecture independent, will move to kernel/irq.c in 2.5.) * * IRQs are in fact implemented a bit like signal handlers for the kernel. * Naturally it's not a 1:1 relation, but there are similarities. */ My internal code uses this as a template, in anticipation of this move; assuming this will happen in 2.5, does it make sense to do an intermediate move to a common mips/kernel/irq.c? If it does, I'd like to see mips/kernel/irq.c updated to more closely match the i386 version, but I'm curious what other people think. -Justin