[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612131323380.5718@woody.osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:26:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Actually, you can... but wether you want is a different story :-)
>
> You can simply mask it, have it handled by userspace and re-enable it
> when that's done.
Nope. Again, this whole mentality is WRONG.
It DOES NOT WORK. No architecture does per-device interrupts portably,
which means that you'll always see sharing.
And once you see sharing, you have small "details" like the harddisk
interrupt or network interrupt that the user-land driver will depend on.
Oops. Instant deadlock.
> I don't mean I -like- the approach... I just say it can be made to
> sort-of work. But I don't see the point.
No. The point really is that it fundamentally _cannot_ work. Not in the
real world.
It can only work in some alternate reality where you can always disable
interrupts per-device, and even in that alternate reality it would be
wrong to use that quoted interrupt handler: not only do you need to
disable the irq, you need to have an "acknowledge" phase too
So you'd actually have to fix things _architecturally_, not just add some
code to the irq handler.
Linus
-
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