Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267455AbUIHNRz (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:17:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268382AbUIHNRr (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:17:47 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:14978 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268295AbUIHNQC (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Sep 2004 09:16:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:17:20 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Scott Wood Subject: Re: [patch] generic-hardirqs.patch, 2.6.9-rc1-bk14 Message-ID: <20040908131720.GA22194@elte.hu> References: <20040908120613.GA16916@elte.hu> <20040908133445.A31267@infradead.org> <20040908124547.GA19231@elte.hu> <20040908134903.A31498@infradead.org> <20040908130552.GC20132@elte.hu> <20040908141217.A31690@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040908141217.A31690@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1575 Lines: 38 * Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > i disagree. It's the same as the VFS model: we have generic_block_bmap() > > which a filesystem might or might not make use of. It's still around > > even if no filesystem makes use of it but do we care? I'd prefer fixing > > our linking logic to get rid of unused functions than complicating code > > and the architecture with conditionals. > > Completley different model. VFS supports lots of filesystem > implementation with one interface. IRQ code is a a single > implementation for each architecture. not at all different model. 90% of the important drivers (no, drivers/s390 doesnt count) are shared between multiple architectures using the same interface: request_irq()/free_irq() and a handler with an enumerated irq vector. > > is there any architecture that cannot make use of kernel/hardirq.c _at > > all_? > > s390 doesn't need it at all because it doesn't have the concept of hardirqs. > > At least arm{,26}, m68k{,nommu} and parisc and sparc{,64} use extremly > different models for irq handling it could be a bit like nommu - a noirq model. i agree with enabling an architecture to exclude _all_ of hardirq.c, but specifying per-function is excessive - if an architecture can make use of some of them then weak symbols will get rid of the rest. Ingo - 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/