Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268702AbUI3EVK (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:21:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268708AbUI3EVK (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:21:10 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:3752 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268702AbUI3EVE (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2004 00:21:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:22:46 +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: <415B8A16.9070101@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> <415A28B9.6080504@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1315 Lines: 31 Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > > Ok i think i may have not conveyed my meaning properly, my mistake. What i > think would be better is if the architectures which have no-op > acpi_unregister_gsi to declare them as static inline in header files. For > architectures (such as ia64) which have a functional acpi_unregister_gsi, > we can declare them in a .c file with the proper exports etc. > Now I (maybe) properly understand what you mean :-). But I still have one concern about your idea. For architectures which have a functional acpi_unregister_gsi, we need to declare "extern void acpi_unregister_gsi(int gsi);" in include/linux/acpi.h that is common to all architectures. I think include/linux/acpi.h is the best place to declare it because acpi_register_gsi(), opposite portion of acpi_unregister_gsi(), is declared in it. On the other hand, for archtectures that have no-op acpi_unregister_gsi(), acpi_unregister_gsi() is defined as static inline function in arch specific header files. This looks not natural to me. How do you think? Thanks, Kenji Kaneshige - 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/