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

[Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> writes:
> 
>> 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()
> 
> Sounds good.  That was my impression when I was looking at this kind of stuff.
> 
> Just so long as this doesn't slow us down so much we don't actually drop the
> ball on this.

Hey I'm the one who has kept the ball rolling since the day pt_regs were 
removed...  :)

	Jeff