RE: [(repost) git Patch 1/1] avoid IRQ0 ioapic pin collision

[Protasevich, Natalie]

> >But I guess using GSI/vector internally only would be fine.
> 
> The last time I tried to name a variable "gsi" instead of "irq",
> Linus launched into a tirade that "GSI" doesn't mean anything to him,
> or anybody else that googles it.  On the other hand "IRQ" means
> something
> to everybody, and if you google it you find all kinds of interesting
> interrupt-related things.
> 
> My point was that "IRQ" means so many "interrupt related" things to
> different people in different contexts, that it is effectively
> meaningless.
> 
> But Linus was not swayed.
> 

Oh Len, let's call this thing IRQ why not ;) I kind of agree that this
is more popular and well-known term, like an old trade mark. I just see
all those layers of code right now to map those to GSIs, pins, whatever
it is, that can be replaced with... well, much smaller layers of code :)
and maybe less "assumpti-ous" too.

--Natalie 
-
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/