Re: [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
>> Do you think set_irqfunc_irq() should be called at all the callsites of
>> set_irq_regs(), or one the fix you mention is applied, do you think current
>> model is sufficient?
> 
> Good question.  At first glance I think the call sites are ok, that
> is where we have the information now.  Non-genirq architectures needs
> work of course.
> 
> However given the weird poll case etc that either we need to take this
> slow and delay this change until all of the drivers are fixed up, to
> not need an irq parameter (as you suggested).  Or that we need to 
> allow both forms of irq handler to coexist temporarily.

After diving in, in the past couple of hours, I'm pretty confident we 
simply do not need {get,set}_irqfunc_irq()

	Jeff