On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 09:05:33PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > Anyway, 0 is a valid IRQ number, so it cannot be used as "no irq". > > May I point you to this thread? > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/21/221
Linus is just plain wrong in this 4 year old mail. > > (The issue comes up once in a while as some archs still use NO_IRQ, some with > 0 some with -1) > > > > if (uioinfo->irq == NO_IRQ) > > > uioinfo->irq = UIO_IRQ_NONE; > > > > Sorry for my ignorance, but what is NO_IRQ? If I do a > > > > grep -r NO_IRQ include/ > > > > I get nothing. > > Try a 'cd arch' before that :) no such luck in arch/x86/ ... > > > Well, you claim it's a false positive. So far, you did not get any > > responses, > > AFAICS. I tend to agree with you, but I'd like to avoid patches that don't > > pass checkpatch.pl, whatever the reason. Either the false positive gets > > confirmed and fixed, or you should fix your patch. > > Well, I assume that issues regarding checkpatch do not have the highest > priority (especially while the merge-window is open), which is understandable. > Fixing this bug (I take any bets that this is one ;)) might not be so trivial, > as modifying $Attributes can easily have lots of side-effects. > > Now, all this does not matter much, as the objections Grant raised are valid > and there might be a totally different outcome to bind devices to UIO. But at > least, we have some code to discuss... OK, I'm looking forward to your next version. Thanks, Hans > > Regards, > > Wolfram > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
