From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934108AbZLPOFR (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:05:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S934023AbZLPOFO (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:05:14 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:38840 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934033AbZLPOFM (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:05:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:04:27 +0100 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: David Miller , xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: handle irq0 special only on x86 Message-ID: <20091216140427.GD3674@pengutronix.de> References: <1260350401-9858-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <2375c9f90912090128k70f54ee1n99421caa81c53a8f@mail.gmail.com> <20091209.014151.140337246.davem@davemloft.net> <20091210082452.GA2420@pengutronix.de> <4B21246B.4070804@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4B21246B.4070804@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:215:17ff:fe12:23b0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 08:40:11AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/10/2009 12:24 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > Note, I fully agree to use 0 for NO_IRQ if you have an int-sized value > > that holds either NO_IRQ or a valid irq number. But in practise I'd not > > recommend to use this idiom. > > > > You're tilting at windmills about something that was settled long ago, > like it or not. And what about the patch, not judging my comments about irq0 in general? AFAICT the check in try_misrouted_irq for irq being not zero does only make sense on x86, doesn't it? The comment a few lines above the check reads: But for 'irqfixup == 2' we also do it for handled interrupts if they are marked as IRQF_IRQPOLL (or for irq zero, which is the traditional PC timer interrupt.. Legacy) So I think the patch is justified. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |