Linus Torvalds wrote:Agreed. However, it does not follow that an int is what _must_ be passed around. We already have design patterns like cookie_pointer = ioremap(raw bus resource) Not that I am the one pushing for that, just noting. Overall this is all wild-assed speculation based on a thought exploration (#irq-remove) that a several kernel hackers seemed to like. Agreed. Not true -- you have metadata/OOB data like MSI messages, where you are passed a value from the PCI hardware in the PCI message, not just an "interrupt asserted" condition. Or s/value/values/ if you enable PCI MSI's multiple message support. The PCI devices themselves are moving from sending a single bit of information ("irq!") to sending actual messages. That is not arch-specific at all, but a new model for "interrupt" (i.e. event) notification being pushed upon us. Jeff --
| Washington Odhiambo | Weird Problem with NAT - more details |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 0/37] dccp: Feature negotiation - last call for comments |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Denys Fedoryshchenko | thousands of classes, e1000 TX unit hang |
