Justin Carlson wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Feb 2001, Pete Popov wrote: > > There's a dozen copies of "irq.c", and a few more files that do the same > > thing but are named differently. The irq.c in arch/mips/kernel doesn't > > seem to be used by any system. The PowerPC also has lots of variants > > also, but I believe they have a single irq.c file that all systems use. > > So I guess my question is, is anyone using arch/mips/kernel/irq.c, and > > does everyone plan on moving to that file (which seems like the right > > thing to do). > > > > I've noticed that arch/i386/kernel/irq.c has this note on it: > > /* > * (mostly architecture independent, will move to kernel/irq.c in 2.5.) > * > * IRQs are in fact implemented a bit like signal handlers for the kernel. > * Naturally it's not a 1:1 relation, but there are similarities. > */ > > My internal code uses this as a template, in anticipation of this move; > assuming this will happen in 2.5, does it make sense to do an intermediate move > to a common mips/kernel/irq.c? > > If it does, I'd like to see mips/kernel/irq.c updated to more closely match the > i386 version, but I'm curious what other people think. Thanks for pointing that out. If all architectures will move to kernel/irq.c, then it probably makes sense to wait. At first glance, mips/kernel/irq.c seems pretty close to i386/kernel/irq.c -- certainly a lot closer than many of the other copies. Pete
