Re: [PATCH] irq: handle irq0 special only on x86

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/12/2010 07:59 AM, Uwe Kleine-KÃnig wrote:
> the feed-back I have got up to now wasn't helpfull.  (Only some "irq0 is
> evil---no it's not" discussion.) So what do you think?  I admit the
> #ifdef isn't nice, but if the semantic is OK I'm willing to rework it
> into something more pretty.

There was a debate on this a long time ago, and the outcome was that IRQ
0 is invalid, across the kernel, and that it is up to each architecture
to carry exceptions (like IRQ 0 for the timer interrupt in x86.)  Hinc
dictat Linus, so you would have to convince him before any of the arch
maintainer could realistically even consider this change.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/