From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261157AbUL1RMO (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:12:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261188AbUL1RMO (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:12:14 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:63755 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261157AbUL1RML (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Dec 2004 12:12:11 -0500 Subject: Re: PATCH: 2.6.10 - Misrouted IRQ recovery for review From: Arjan van de Ven To: Alan Cox Cc: mingo@redhat.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <1104249508.22366.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1104249508.22366.101.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 18:11:58 +0100 Message-Id: <1104253919.4173.11.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (4.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 15:58 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > Ported to the new kernel/irq code. one question; I see you start passing a struct pt_regs around all over the place; does *anything* actually use that animal, or should we consider just passing a NULL ..... (and eventually in 2.7 remove the parameter entirely from irq handlers?)