Tejun Heo wrote:
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 03:41:19PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote:
There is a simple problem with the patch which is that an "IRQ 0" can and does
actually exist on a bunch of platforms, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Checking for -1 (which means for definite, no irq at all, because it is
totally unambiguous, as a -1 IRQ numbering is "impossible") is more correct.
This was discussed years ago.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/22/159
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/22/227
Would this break any existing platforms? If so, can those be fixed
together or does it become a much bigger problem that way?
Pata_of_platform stacks upon pata_platform. This patch fixes problem
concerning definition of "no irq" without touch any other place. So
far I can't see any new problem.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
