[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0711281608490.26365@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:13:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ARM Linux Mailing List
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH PREEMPT_RT]: On AT91 ARM: GPIO Interrupt handling can/will
stall forever
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
> Ignoring the ARM side of things for a sec, handle_simple_irq() will
> mask() the interrupt in the special case that an interrupt is already in
> the processes of being handled.. handle_simple_irq() also unmasks when
> it finishes handling an interrupt (something real time adds for some
> reason) ..
>
> In terms of threading the irq everything is the same except there is no
> unmask() call when the thread finishes ..
>
OK, to be honest, I never fully understood the concept of this
"simple_irq". I figured it was because of the ARM architecture.
Your arguments seem reasonable and you are probably correct. But I didn't
write this code, nor do I understand it, and before I go ahead and change
it, I'll wait to hear input from Thomas. Hopefully, he'll be back soon.
Perhaps my confusion about the simple_irq part is from the bug you are
trying to fix. I've been confused by why it was different ;-)
-- Steve
-
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