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.

'irq' argument is gone from the entire tree, save for

drivers/char/tpm/tpm_tis.c
drivers/scsi/sym53c416.c
drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c
drivers/scsi/NCR5380.c
drivers/net/hamradio/scc.c
drivers/ide/ide-io.c

So I'd say the task is within reach :)

All the irq handler cleanups have been checked into branch 
'irq-cleanups', and 'irq-remove' branch is rebased on top of that.

	Jeff