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? Hi again Kumar. There's no rush to submit these sorts of patches. Nothing is going to really be improved because of these changes. Submit an overall rfc patch description to the various mailing lists (affected MAINTAINERS generally don't read lkml but do read their specific mailing list) with options like 0 or IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE to show what the issues are and why you're doing this. Wait at least a week for any comment. You'll likely get some "useless churn" emails. You can generally ignore those. If you get any real comments, deal with them. Then after at least that week passes, submit the patches. cheers, Joe -- 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
