On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Kenji Kaneshige wrote: > I'm trying to update my patch based on the feedback from you. Updated > patch defines acpi_unregister_gsi() in both include/asm-i386/acpi.h > and include/asm-ia64/acpi.h. But now I'm having one concern about it. > > Some arch specific functions would be called from acpi_unregister_gsi() > when it is implemented. But include/asm-xxx/acpi.h is included before > many other header files, so many 'implicit declaration of function xxx' > warning message would be appeared. These warning messages are disappeared > if we declare all functions called by acpi_unregister_gsi() also in > include/asm-xxx/acpi.h. But I don't like this approach very much. > > After all, now I think it is better not to define acpi_unregister_gsi() > in header files. Ok i think i may have not conveyed my meaning properly, my mistake. What i think would be better is if the architectures which have no-op acpi_unregister_gsi to declare them as static inline in header files. For architectures (such as ia64) which have a functional acpi_unregister_gsi, we can declare them in a .c file with the proper exports etc. Thanks Kenji and sorry for the confusion. Zwane - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Wed Sep 29 11:35:50 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:31 EST