Re: [RFC][PATCH] genirq: add IRQF_NONE

[Josh Triplett]

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:48:39AM +0200, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> What about adding an IRQF_NONE flag as in the below patch?
> 
> I'm currently working on removing the use of the deprecated
> IRQF_DISABLED flag, and frequently have to replace
> IRQF_DISABLED by 0, typically in request_irq() arguments.
> 
> Using IRQF_NONE instead of 0 would make the code more readable,
> at least for people reading driver code for the first time.
> 
> Would it worth it?
> 
> I'm sure this kind of idea has come up many times before...
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <michael.opdenacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I don't think it makes sense, no; it's a flags field, meant to receive a
set of flags, and 0 is the standard empty set of flags.  I think
IRQF_NONE would actually reduce readability, especially for readers who
haven't seen it before, because it isn't immediately obvious that it
just corresponds to the 0 of "no flags".  My first guess reading it
would be that it's some non-zero flag with some non-obvious semantic,
such as "don't actually allocate an IRQ", or something strange like
that.

- Josh Triplett
--
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/