Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756703AbZCJPd6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:33:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756510AbZCJPdt (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:33:49 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:43317 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753691AbZCJPds (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:33:48 -0400 Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:33:32 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Magnus Damm , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Free setup_irq() interrupt V2 Message-ID: <20090310153332.GB23463@elte.hu> References: <20090310102459.23422.80761.sendpatchset@rx1.opensource.se> <20090310150415.GL3850@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1399 Lines: 43 * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Magnus, > > > > > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Magnus Damm wrote: > > > > From: Magnus Damm > > > > This patch adds a __free_irq() function for releasing > > > > interrupts requested with setup_irq(). > > > > > > I think there is a simpler solution than adding yet another > > > function for the confusion of driver writers. See below. > > > > Uhm, i asked for that solution ;-) > > Uhm, I missed that :) > > > To reduce the confusion in generic code with yet another IRQF flag. > > Hmm. I still prefer a solution which confuses the few people hacking > on kernel/irq/* instead of having another function which confuses the > already confused driver writers. > > I can live with the two functions as well, but then please let us use > a function name which is more intuitive than __free_irq(). > > setup_irq() -> remove_irq() > request_irq() -> free_irq() Sure, that's fine with me. I almost suggested shutdown_irq() to Magnus originally, then went for __free_irq(). 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/