Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] Updated patches for PCI IRQ resource deallocationsupport [2/3]

[Zwane Mwaikambo]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Kenji Kaneshige wrote:

> I'm trying to update my patch based on the feedback from you. Updated
> patch defines acpi_unregister_gsi() in both include/asm-i386/acpi.h
> and include/asm-ia64/acpi.h. But now I'm having one concern about it.
> 
> Some arch specific functions would be called from acpi_unregister_gsi()
> when it is implemented. But include/asm-xxx/acpi.h is included before
> many other header files, so many 'implicit declaration of function xxx'
> warning message would be appeared. These warning messages are disappeared
> if we declare all functions called by acpi_unregister_gsi() also in
> include/asm-xxx/acpi.h. But I don't like this approach very much.
> 
> After all, now I think it is better not to define acpi_unregister_gsi()
> in header files.

Ok i think i may have not conveyed my meaning properly, my mistake. What i 
think would be better is if the architectures which have no-op 
acpi_unregister_gsi to declare them as static inline in header files. For 
architectures (such as ia64) which have a functional acpi_unregister_gsi, 
we can declare them in a .c file with the proper exports etc.

Thanks Kenji and sorry for the confusion.
	Zwane

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/