On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 10:02:33PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 22:49, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > No functional change.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/mn10300/Kconfig | 5 +----
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-2.6/arch/mn10300/Kconfig
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/mn10300/Kconfig
> > > +++ linux-2.6/arch/mn10300/Kconfig
> > > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> > > config MN10300
> > > def_bool y
> > > select HAVE_OPROFILE
> > > + select GENERIC_HARDIRQS
> >
> > Wasn't this supposed to be "select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS"?
Crap, yes.
> > /me studying generic hardirqs...
>
> One could hope this was nicely documented in kernel/irq/Kconfig.
> But that file contains only 9 lines of comments for 10 config symbols.
>
> Maybe it is just me but I was struggeling understanding the purpose
> of these config symbols.
>
> I found the individual bits of genirq nicely documented in most cases.
> But the overall picture was/is hard to get.
>
> And I never got enough understanding to write up something myself :-(
Point taken. /me goes and adds comments :)
tglx
