From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030463AbVKCUwo (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:52:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932569AbVKCUwo (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:52:44 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:17324 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932565AbVKCUwn (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:52:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:53:03 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: First steps towards making NO_IRQ a generic concept Message-ID: <20051103205303.GA8001@elte.hu> References: <20051103144926.GV23749@parisc-linux.org> <20051103145118.GW23749@parisc-linux.org> <20051103154439.GA28190@elte.hu> <20051103160252.GA23749@parisc-linux.org> <20051103162059.GA495@elte.hu> <20051103170559.GB23749@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051103170559.GB23749@parisc-linux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled SpamAssassin version=3.0.4 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > ok, understood. I'm wondering, why is there any need to do a PCI_NO_IRQ? > > Why not just a generic NO_IRQ. It's not like we can or want to make them > > different in the future. The interrupt vector number is a generic thing > > that attaches to the platform via request_irq() - there is nothing 'PCI' > > about it. So the PCI layer shouldnt pretend it has its own IRQ > > abstraction - the two are forcibly joined. The same goes for > > pci_valid_irq() - we should only have valid_irq(). Am i missing > > anything? > > The last patch in this vein will delete PCI_NO_IRQ, replacing it with > NO_IRQ. To make that final patch small, I wanted to introduce an > abstraction that PCI drivers could use. Possibly it's not well > thought out. Do you think we should put in the explicit compares > against PCI_NO_IRQ as we find drivers that care and then do a big > sweep when we think we've found them all? i missed the detail that we want to have PCI_NO_IRQ at 0, while keeping NO_IRQ at -1 - so the namespaces have to be separate, temporarily. So your approach is fine. Ingo