Re: SA_TRIGGER_* vs. SA_SAMPLE_RANDOM

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 00:25 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-30 at 13:31 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:27:27 +0200
> > 
> > > I'll cook it up tomorrow.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot Thomas. :)
> 
> That's what I came up with:
> 
> SA_INTERRUPT		IRQF_IRQS_DISABLED
> SA_SAMPLE_RANDOM	IRQF_SAMPLE_RANDOM
> SA_SHIRQ		IRQF_SHARE_IRQ
> SA_PROBEIRQ		IRQF_PROBE_IRQ
> SA_TRIGGER_LOW		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
> SA_TRIGGER_HIGH		IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH
> SA_TRIGGER_FALLING	IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING
> SA_TRIGGER_RISING	IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING
> SA_TRIGGER_MASK		IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK
> SA_TIMER		IRQF_TIMER

Looks good to me. Do we want to keep a PERCPU flag too ? I don't really
need it anymore on powerpc as I just use the percpu flow handler and I'm
not allowing sharing of IPIs but others might.

Also, I'd like to store the IRQ types in the irq_desc regardless of the
actions that have been registered or not. Any suggestion where to put
that ? The current type values conflict with other desc->status bits at
the moment unless we shift the whole thing up...

Ben.


-
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/