Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 03:41:19PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: >> There is a simple problem with the patch which is that an "IRQ 0" can and does >> actually exist on a bunch of platforms, at least to the best of my knowledge. >> >> Checking for -1 (which means for definite, no irq at all, because it is >> totally unambiguous, as a -1 IRQ numbering is "impossible") is more correct. > > This was discussed years ago. > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/22/159 > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/22/227 > Would this break any existing platforms? If so, can those be fixed together or does it become a much bigger problem that way? Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
