From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267473AbUG2RWf (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:22:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264853AbUG2RWe (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:22:34 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:12991 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267474AbUG2RVV (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:21:21 -0400 Message-ID: <41093200.1010004@pobox.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:21:04 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040510 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Cusack CC: lkml Subject: Re: net_device->irq vs pci_dev->irq References: <20040728204500.A29711@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20040728204500.A29711@google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Frank Cusack wrote: > Sent this to linux-net@ with no response today, anyone care to comment? netdev@oss.sgi.com is the best place for network stack/driver development. > In the e1000-5.2.30.1 driver, "they" no longer propagate pdev->irq into > netdev->irq. This looks safe to add back in, am I mistaken? I want > ifconfig to report the irq, which it no longer does without netdev->irq. netdev->irq is purely informational. Setting, or not, is largely irrelevant these days. Jeff