From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:08:18 -0800 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:64497 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by oss.sgi.com with ESMTP id ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:08:08 -0800 Received: from mvista.com (IDENT:ppopov@zeus.mvista.com [10.0.0.112]) by hermes.mvista.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f19J4S812503; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:04:28 -0800 Message-ID: <3A84400E.82CEA4B@mvista.com> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:07:58 -0800 From: Pete Popov Organization: Monta Vista Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17 i586) X-Accept-Language: bg, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: carlson@sibyte.com CC: "linux-mips@oss.sgi.com" Subject: Re: irq.c References: <3A843C2D.525643E7@mvista.com> <0102091101190P.01909@plugh.sibyte.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing Justin Carlson wrote: > > 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. Thanks for pointing that out. If all architectures will move to kernel/irq.c, then it probably makes sense to wait. At first glance, mips/kernel/irq.c seems pretty close to i386/kernel/irq.c -- certainly a lot closer than many of the other copies. Pete