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 <[email protected]>
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 [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
