linux-kernel - Re: feature-removal-schedule obsoletes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:41:46 +0100
From:	Jörn Engel <joern@...nheim.fh-wedel.de>
To:	Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Dominik Brodowski <linux@...do.de>,
	Harald Welte <laforge@...filter.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
Subject: Re: feature-removal-schedule obsoletes

On Tue, 31 October 2006 19:32:12 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 04:57:56PM +0100, J?rn Engel wrote:
> > 
> > Why does the MMC block driver use a thread?  Is there a technical
> > reason for this or could it be done in original process context as
> > well, removing some code and useless cpu scheduler overhead?
> 
> As I understand it, there is no guarantee that a block drivers request
> function will be called in process context - it could be called in
> interrupt context.

Makes some sense.  I would still like to understand when a request
function is called from interrupt context, but if it is, the thread is
certainly necessary.

Jörn

-- 
This above all: to thine own self be true.
-- Shakespeare
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/