Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 08:48:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 08:48:33 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]:54497 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 08:48:32 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 08:57:06 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] irq handling code consolidation, second try (v850 part) Message-ID: <20030104135706.GA12349@gnu.org> References: <87hecp83yq.fsf@tc-1-100.kawasaki.gol.ne.jp> <20030104130352.GK10477@pazke> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030104130352.GK10477@pazke> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop From: Miles Bader Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1104 Lines: 24 On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 04:03:52PM +0300, Andrey Panin wrote: > I used arch_ prefix to clearly mark arch specifig things, but > irq_valid() is probably a better name. Comments ? You should only `mark arch specific things' when there's a reason -- after all, there are _lots_ of arch-specific definitions in linux, but very rarely is it important to note that fact; the caller usually doesn't care. [consider that it might be desirable at some point in the future to have a arch-independent version of `irq_valid'; the callers shouldn't have to be changed to accomodate such a change] In the case of something like `arch_setup_irq', there _is_ a reason: it's a small arch-specific `core' for the real generic setup_irq (and one which will probably be used _only_ by setup_irq). -Miles -- Ich bin ein Virus. Mach' mit und kopiere mich in Deine .signature. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/