Re: First steps towards making NO_IRQ a generic concept

[Ingo Molnar]

* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > ok, understood. I'm wondering, why is there any need to do a PCI_NO_IRQ?  
> > Why not just a generic NO_IRQ. It's not like we can or want to make them 
> > different in the future. The interrupt vector number is a generic thing 
> > that attaches to the platform via request_irq() - there is nothing 'PCI' 
> > about it. So the PCI layer shouldnt pretend it has its own IRQ 
> > abstraction - the two are forcibly joined. The same goes for 
> > pci_valid_irq() - we should only have valid_irq(). Am i missing 
> > anything?
> 
> The last patch in this vein will delete PCI_NO_IRQ, replacing it with 
> NO_IRQ.  To make that final patch small, I wanted to introduce an 
> abstraction that PCI drivers could use.  Possibly it's not well 
> thought out.  Do you think we should put in the explicit compares 
> against PCI_NO_IRQ as we find drivers that care and then do a big 
> sweep when we think we've found them all?

i missed the detail that we want to have PCI_NO_IRQ at 0, while keeping 
NO_IRQ at -1 - so the namespaces have to be separate, temporarily. So 
your approach is fine.

	Ingo
-
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/