* [PATCH] arch/i386/kernel/irq.c: do_IRQ()
@ 2002-05-21 0:05 William Jhun
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: William Jhun @ 2002-05-21 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Though a comment in arch/i386/kernel/irq.c: do_IRQ() clearly states:
* 0 return value means that this irq is already being
* handled by some other CPU. (or is disabled)
it seems that the function can only ever return (1). We wrote some low-level
interrupt handling code that depends on the correct value of this function.
Is the following patch what was initially desired? (patched against 2.4.18
tarball from kernel.org...)
Thanks,
William Jhun
---
*** irq.c.orig Mon May 20 16:55:42 2002
--- irq.c Mon May 20 16:57:00 2002
***************
*** 639,645 ****
if (softirq_pending(cpu))
do_softirq();
! return 1;
}
/**
--- 639,645 ----
if (softirq_pending(cpu))
do_softirq();
! return (action != NULL);
}
/**
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2002-05-21 0:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-05-21 0:05 [PATCH] arch/i386/kernel/irq.c: do_IRQ() William Jhun
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox