Hello, On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 10:20:01AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > I just noticed this when digging in the irq handling. At least for arm > this doesn't make sense. Not sure if x86 is the only arch this test > is valid for, but probably it is. ... so I added linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > kernel/irq/spurious.c | 2 ++ > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/irq/spurious.c b/kernel/irq/spurious.c > index 22b0a6e..4996b66 100644 > --- a/kernel/irq/spurious.c > +++ b/kernel/irq/spurious.c > @@ -199,8 +199,10 @@ try_misrouted_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, > if (irqfixup < 2) > return 0; > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_X86) > if (!irq) > return 1; > +#endif > > /* > * Since we don't get the descriptor lock, "action" can the feed-back I have got up to now wasn't helpfull. (Only some "irq0 is evil---no it's not" discussion.) So what do you think? I admit the #ifdef isn't nice, but if the semantic is OK I'm willing to rework it into something more pretty. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
