From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754050AbaG2T2v (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:28:51 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:33396 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751321AbaG2T2t (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2014 15:28:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:28:43 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Brian Norris Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Torokhov , Linux PM list , Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED Message-ID: <20140729192843.GP3935@laptop> References: <20140724212620.GO3935@laptop> <13290270.IfKaUSRMLR@vostro.rjw.lan> <20140725055847.GQ3935@laptop> <20140729192008.GH3711@ld-irv-0074> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140729192008.GH3711@ld-irv-0074> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:20:08PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > I'm curious what you mean. Are you referring to the fact that its input > is simply an IRQ number (regardless of whether the IRQ is shared), not > something that identifies the particular handler (e.g., struct > irqaction)? Yes. I know that shared stuff is a massive head-ache, but I feel we should not introduce primitives that do not work with it.