[PATCH v2] linux irq: remove suer_intr from linux_action

[Junling Ma]

linux irq: remove suer_intr from linux_action

---
linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c | 10 ----------
1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c b/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
index aee10462..de7d6c6a 100644
--- a/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
+++ b/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
@@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ struct linux_action
void *dev_id;
struct linux_action *next;
unsigned long flags;
- user_intr_t *user_intr;
};

static struct linux_action *irq_action[16] =
@@ -116,14 +115,6 @@ linux_intr (int irq)
action = action->next;
}

- if (!irq_action[irq])
- {
- /* No handler any more, disable interrupt */
- mask_irq (irq);
- ivect[irq] = intnull;
- iunit[irq] = irq;
- }
-
restore_flags (flags);

intr_count--;
@@ -235,7 +226,6 @@ request_irq (unsigned int irq, void (*handler) (int, void *, struct pt_regs *),
action->next = NULL;
action->dev_id = dev_id;
action->flags = flags;
- action->user_intr = NULL;

retval = setup_x86_irq (irq, action);
if (retval)
--
2.28.0.rc1

[Samuel Thibault]

Hello,

In this patch,

Junling Ma, le mar. 04 août 2020 14:07:45 -0700, a ecrit:

> diff --git a/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c b/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
> index aee10462..de7d6c6a 100644
> --- a/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
> +++ b/linux/dev/arch/i386/kernel/irq.c

> @@ -116,14 +115,6 @@ linux_intr (int irq)
> action = action->next;
> }
>
> - if (!irq_action[irq])
> - {
> - /* No handler any more, disable interrupt */
> - mask_irq (irq);
> - ivect[irq] = intnull;
> - iunit[irq] = irq;
> - }
> -
> restore_flags (flags);
>
> intr_count--;

This should really go along the patch that removes the deletion within
the loop, since *that* is why we don't need this any more.

And then, I would say this could as well move along:

> @@ -78,7 +78,6 @@ struct linux_action
> void *dev_id;
> struct linux_action *next;
> unsigned long flags;
> - user_intr_t *user_intr;
> };
>
> static struct linux_action *irq_action[16] =

> @@ -235,7 +226,6 @@ request_irq (unsigned int irq, void (*handler) (int, void *, struct pt_regs *),
> action->next = NULL;
> action->dev_id = dev_id;
> action->flags = flags;
> - action->user_intr = NULL;
>
> retval = setup_x86_irq (irq, action);
> if (retval)

The two resulting patches make full sense by themselves and nice to
read.