[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612131522310.5718@woody.osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:28:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
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 Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> For the sharing case, some sort of softirq should be created. That is, when a
> hard interrupt is generated and the irq handler is executed, set a flag that at
> some other point in time, the irq is delivered to userspace. Like you do with
> signals in userspace:
NO.
The whole point is, YOU CANNOT DO THIS.
You need to shut the device up. Otherwise it keeps screaming.
Please, people, don't confuse the issue any further. A hardware driver
ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY HAS TO
have an in-kernel irq handler that knows how to turn the irq off.
End of story. No ifs, buts, maybes about it.
You cannot have a generic kernel driver that doesn't know about the
low-level hardware (not with current hardware - you could make the "shut
the f*ck up" a generic thing if you designed hardware properly, but that
simply does not exist in general right now).
In short: a user-space device driver has exactly TWO choices:
- don't use interrupts at all, just polling
- have an in-kernel irq handler that at a minimum knows how to test
whether the irq came from that device and knows how to shut it up.
This means NOT A GENERIC DRIVER. That simply isn't an option on the
table, no matter how much people would like it to be.
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