> > > > > > To fix this add some empty inline functions for !GENERIC_HARDIRQS. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that's right fix. If architecture does not use > > > > > GENERIC_HARDIRQS, it may want to implement *_device_irqs() > > > > > itself. Before your patch, it could, after your patch, it can not. > > > > > > > > > > Better put those empty functions in arch/s390/include? > > > > > > > > If any of the affected architectures wants to implement *_device_irqs() > > > > itself, it can do the appropriate change in future. For now, let's not break > > > > compilation on them, shall we? > > > > > > Well, if one of those architectures will want to implement > > > *_device_irqs(), it will have to either modify s390, and all other > > > !GENERIC_HARDIRQS architectures. > > > > Why will it? I think it will be sufficient to modify the header changed by > > this patch and the architecture in question. > > Hmm, how? Putting #ifndef MY_ARCH into generic header? Inventing > CONFIG_NON_GENERIC_HARDIRQS_BUT_I_NEED_DEVICE_IRQS? Maybe playing with attribute((weak)) is the cleanest solution? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
