Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268167AbUI2DN2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:13:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268168AbUI2DN1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:13:27 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:19947 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268167AbUI2DNW (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:13:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:15:05 +0900 From: Kenji Kaneshige Subject: Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] Updated patches for PCI IRQ resource deallocation support [2/3] In-reply-to: To: Zwane Mwaikambo Cc: Linux Kernel , long , Andrew Morton , Greg Kroah-Hartmann , Len Brown , tony.luck@intel.com, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <415A28B9.6080504@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: ja User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja-JP; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) References: <4157A9D7.4090605@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1870 Lines: 52 Hi Zwane, I'm trying to update my patch based on the feedback from you. Updated patch defines acpi_unregister_gsi() in both include/asm-i386/acpi.h and include/asm-ia64/acpi.h. But now I'm having one concern about it. Some arch specific functions would be called from acpi_unregister_gsi() when it is implemented. But include/asm-xxx/acpi.h is included before many other header files, so many 'implicit declaration of function xxx' warning message would be appeared. These warning messages are disappeared if we declare all functions called by acpi_unregister_gsi() also in include/asm-xxx/acpi.h. But I don't like this approach very much. After all, now I think it is better not to define acpi_unregister_gsi() in header files. How do you think? Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: > >> > > Why not just make these static inlines in header files? Since you're on >> > > this, how about making irq_desc and friends dynamic too? >> >> I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but my idea is defining >> acpi_unregister_gsi() as a opposite part of acpi_register_gsi(). >> Acpi_register_gsi() is defined for each arch (i386, ia64), so >> acpi_unregister_gsi() is defined for each i386 and ia64 too. > > Well i meant can't you define them in a header file as follows; > > static void inline acpi_unregister_gsi (unsigned int irq) > { > } > > An advantage is that it saves memory since you don't also have to create > the extra data objects for the exported symbol. But really you don't have > to export something which does nothing. > > Thanks, > Zwane > - 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/