On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 08:30 +0530, Kumar Gaurav wrote: > On Friday 09 August 2013 08:24 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 08:15 +0530, Kumar Gaurav wrote: > >> On Friday 09 August 2013 08:09 AM, Joe Perches wrote: > > [] > >>> And, maybe it'd be better to use IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE > >>> instead of 0. > >> I tried googling what to replace IRQF_DISABLED with but found nothing. > >> In the patch fixed earlier (not by me) it was replaced with 0 so i did > >> same. But from now on I'll use IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE. Thanks > > Maybe that's not the right thing to do. > > 0 is what's almost exclusively used. > > IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE is only used a few times. > > It's also a lot longer. > > > Sorry to poke back. But just want to confirm. I should use > IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE and not 0 right? I'd probably just use 0 unless someone wants to chime in otherwise with some compelling argument. It'd be pretty easy to mechanically change any request_irq(,, 0, to request_irq(,, IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE, if that's what people want. (and all the other types of irq requests too) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
