Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-20 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:54:43AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > The overwhelming majority of drivers do not ever bother with the 'irq' > argument that is passed to each driver's irq handler. > > Of the minority of drivers that do use the arg, the majority of those > have the irq number stored

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-20 Thread Greg KH
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:54:43AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: The overwhelming majority of drivers do not ever bother with the 'irq' argument that is passed to each driver's irq handler. Of the minority of drivers that do use the arg, the majority of those have the irq number stored in

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Jeff Garzik
Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: * Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: thanks for doing this. Yes. keeping this alive is good. The practical question is how do we make this change without breaking the

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > thanks for doing this. > >> > >> Yes. keeping this alive is good. > >> > >> The practical question is how do we make this change without

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > thanks for doing this. >> >> Yes. keeping this alive is good. >> >> The practical question is how do we make this change without breaking >> the drivers that use their irq argument. > > the

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > thanks for doing this. > > Yes. keeping this alive is good. > > The practical question is how do we make this change without breaking > the drivers that use their irq argument. the get_irq_regs() approach worked out really well. We should

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Jeff Garzik
Jeff Garzik wrote: Once that effort is done, everything should be in the 'trivial' pile and not have the logic that you are worried about (and thus there would be no need to add an additional branch to the error handling path). er, s/error/irq/ the perils of a multi-threaded brain... - To

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Jeff Garzik
Eric W. Biederman wrote: Yes. keeping this alive is good. The practical question is how do we make this change without breaking the drivers that use their irq argument. This is why I'm taking it slow, and not rushing to get this upstream :) I am finding a ton of bugs in each

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Mark Gross
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:54:43AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE then whats the point ? > > This posting is just to demonstrate something that I have been keeping > alive in the background. I have no urge to push it upstream

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> >> WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE >> >> This posting is just to demonstrate something that I have been keeping >> alive in the background. I have no urge to push it

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE > > This posting is just to demonstrate something that I have been keeping > alive in the background. I have no urge to push it upstream anytime > soon. > > The overwhelming majority

[PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Jeff Garzik
WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE This posting is just to demonstrate something that I have been keeping alive in the background. I have no urge to push it upstream anytime soon. The overwhelming majority of drivers do not ever bother with the 'irq' argument

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks for doing this. Yes. keeping this alive is good. The practical question is how do we make this change without breaking the drivers that use their irq argument. the get_irq_regs() approach

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Jeff Garzik
Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks for doing this. Yes. keeping this alive is good. The practical question is how do we make this change without breaking the

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Jeff Garzik
Jeff Garzik wrote: Once that effort is done, everything should be in the 'trivial' pile and not have the logic that you are worried about (and thus there would be no need to add an additional branch to the error handling path). er, s/error/irq/ the perils of a multi-threaded brain... - To

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE This posting is just to demonstrate something that I have been keeping alive in the background. I have no urge to push it upstream anytime soon. The overwhelming majority of

[PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Jeff Garzik
WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE This posting is just to demonstrate something that I have been keeping alive in the background. I have no urge to push it upstream anytime soon. The overwhelming majority of drivers do not ever bother with the 'irq' argument

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks for doing this. Yes. keeping this alive is good. The practical question is how do we make this change without breaking the drivers that

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks for doing this. Yes. keeping this alive is good. The practical question is how do we make this change without breaking the drivers that use their irq argument. the get_irq_regs() approach worked out really well. We should do a

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Mark Gross
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:54:43AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE then whats the point ? This posting is just to demonstrate something that I have been keeping alive in the background. I have no urge to push it upstream anytime

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Thomas Gleixner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE WARNING NOT FOR MERGE This posting is just to demonstrate something that I have been keeping alive in the background. I have no urge to push it upstream anytime

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Remove 'irq' argument from all irq handlers

2007-10-19 Thread Jeff Garzik
Eric W. Biederman wrote: Yes. keeping this alive is good. The practical question is how do we make this change without breaking the drivers that use their irq argument. This is why I'm taking it slow, and not rushing to get this upstream :) I am finding a ton of bugs in each