On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:46, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But.. let's make one thing clear: Alan Cox and Linus have been going on
> about how IRQ0 should not be used. Let's be crystal clear: even x86
> uses IRQ0. It happens to be the PIC timer, and that gets claimed early
> on during the x86 boot. So please don't tell me that x86 avoids IRQ0.
> It doesn't. It just happens that x86 never shows IRQ0 to anything but
> the i8253 PIC driver.
It's shown in /proc/interrupts due to a "bug" in show_interrupts().
The (gmail damaged) patch below fixes this bug.
>From 46f51a2d42548358868a34df00c2a4e47bbdf691 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <Geert.Uytterhoeven@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:55:05 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] /proc/interrupts: irq zero is invalid
As zero is an invalid irq number, show_interrupts() should not try to
print it. Just return after printing the header for i == 0.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/irq/proc.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/irq/proc.c b/kernel/irq/proc.c
index 4bd4faa..5b8bbf0 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/proc.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/proc.c
@@ -439,6 +439,7 @@ int show_interrupts(struct seq_file *p, void *v)
for_each_online_cpu(j)
seq_printf(p, "CPU%-8d", j);
seq_putc(p, '\n');
+ return 0;
}
desc = irq_to_desc(i);
--
1.7.0.4
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
