[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1196178834.23808.11.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:53:54 -0800
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
ARM Linux Mailing List
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH PREEMPT_RT]: On AT91 ARM: GPIO Interrupt handling
can/will stall forever
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 07:25 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:11 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Thomas,
> >
> > Can you ACK or NACK this patch. I know you play with a bunch of
> > hardware that this patch may affect.
> >
>
> My two cents, I think it's needed (or something like it).. It looks like
> handle_simple_irq normally expects a custom cascade type handler to
> unmask on return. When you switch to a threaded handler the cascade
> handler is gone and can't unmask..
I take this back .. The comment at the top of handle_simple_irq() is,
* Note: The caller is expected to handle the ack, clear, mask and
* unmask issues if necessary.
So we shouldn't need any flow control unless there is some other
factors..
Additionally, we have a patch in the real time tree called
"irq-mask-fix.patch" which adds an "unmask" to handle_simple_irq, but as
the note says we don't need flow control..
Daniel
-
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