From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67373B7B83 for ; Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:02:44 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [RFC] powerpc/irq: Add generic API for setting up cascaded IRQs From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Grant Likely In-Reply-To: References: <20090912054410.21847.63718.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <1252736925.8375.65.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:02:38 +1000 Message-Id: <1253008958.8375.213.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > I'm a reverse polish kind of guy. I preferring 'subject'_'action' > over 'action'_'subject' just because it groups like subjects together. > But it doesn't matter much, especially in this case where 'subject' > is in a group of exactly 1. :-) > > I'll do whichever you prefer. I just caught myself calling something relocs_check instead of check_relocs so I suppose it's fair game :-) Whatever you want. Cheers, Ben.