On 01/12/2010 07:59 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > 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. There was a debate on this a long time ago, and the outcome was that IRQ 0 is invalid, across the kernel, and that it is up to each architecture to carry exceptions (like IRQ 0 for the timer interrupt in x86.) Hinc dictat Linus, so you would have to convince him before any of the arch maintainer could realistically even consider this change. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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
