Re: [RFC] killing linux/irq.h

2005-09-15 Thread Russell King
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:34:55AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:50:38AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > We get regular portability bugs when somebody decides to include > > > linux/irq.h into a driver instead of a

Re: [RFC] killing linux/irq.h

2005-09-15 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:34:55AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:50:38AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > We get regular portability bugs when somebody decides to include > > > linux/irq.h into a driver instead of a

Re: [RFC] killing linux/irq.h

2005-09-15 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:50:38AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > We get regular portability bugs when somebody decides to include > > linux/irq.h into a driver instead of asm/irq.h. It's almost always a > > wrong thing to do and, in fact, ca

Re: [RFC] killing linux/irq.h

2005-09-11 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We get regular portability bugs when somebody decides to include > linux/irq.h into a driver instead of asm/irq.h. It's almost always a > wrong thing to do and, in fact, causes immediate breakage on e.g. arm. Wouldn't it be more logical to make