[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061031214146.GB30739@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists