On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 13:24 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote: > But then, what _is_ the problem with your approach above? An arch that > wants (and implements) hard_irq_disable will also #define that dummy > macro, so we just need to pull in the appropriate header (directly, > indirectly, anyhow -- we don't really care) into > include/linux/interrupt.h and then just do the exact same "#ifndef > hard_irq_disable" check that you're doing right now. I must be missing > something trivial (either that or I need to go and have a coffee :-) > because I don't see the possibility of hitting multiple _different_ > definitions with the approach you mentioned just now.
Sure, the only problem is that I don't want to pull asm/hw_irq.h directly from linux/interrupts.h unless all arch maintainers around verify it's ok, because those headers are a bit of a can of worm at the moment ... So I'd rather say that if your arch has a custom version of hard_irq_disable(), make sure that asm/system.h pulls it in a way or another. And that's already included. Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/