linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: irq.c

To: Pete Popov <ppopov@mvista.com>, "linux-mips@oss.sgi.com" <linux-mips@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: irq.c
From: Justin Carlson <carlson@sibyte.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:56:50 -0800
In-reply-to: <3A843C2D.525643E7@mvista.com>
Organization: Sibyte
References: <3A843C2D.525643E7@mvista.com>
Reply-to: carlson@sibyte.com
Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001, Pete Popov wrote:
> There's a dozen copies of "irq.c", and a few more files that do the same
> thing but are named differently. The irq.c in arch/mips/kernel doesn't
> seem to be used by any system.  The PowerPC also has lots of variants
> also, but I believe they have a single irq.c file that all systems use. 
> So I guess my question is, is anyone using arch/mips/kernel/irq.c, and
> does everyone plan on moving to that file (which seems like the right
> thing to do).  
> 

I've noticed that arch/i386/kernel/irq.c has this note on it:

/*
 * (mostly architecture independent, will move to kernel/irq.c in 2.5.)
 *
 * IRQs are in fact implemented a bit like signal handlers for the kernel.
 * Naturally it's not a 1:1 relation, but there are similarities.
 */

My internal code uses this as a template, in anticipation of this move;
assuming this will happen in 2.5, does it make sense to do an intermediate move
to a common mips/kernel/irq.c?

If it does, I'd like to see mips/kernel/irq.c updated to more closely match the
i386 version, but I'm curious what other people think.

-Justin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>