On Sunday 03 February 2008 17:15:02 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:57:58 +1100 Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I assume that these ancient network drivers were trying to find out if > > an irq is available. eepro.c expecting +EBUSY was doubly wrong. > > > > I'm not sure that can_request_irq() is the right thing, but these drivers > > are definitely wrong. > > > > request_irq should BUG() on bad input, and these would have been found > > earlier. > > This breaks non-CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS architectures. > > alpha: > > drivers/net/3c503.c: In function 'el2_open': > drivers/net/3c503.c:382: error: implicit declaration of function > 'can_request_irq'
Since this code was non-functional before, should we just be removing the "check if irq is free" check altogether? This is Jeff's call, I think. Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
