[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0810021612280.2919@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 16:14:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
Sven Dietrich <sdietrich@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/5] genirq: add infrastructure for threaded interrupt
handlers
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 21:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Clearly threading irq handlers does have something to do with real
> > > > > time, unless this patch isn't actually threading anything ..
> >
> > Well, that's clearly wrong: threaded IRQ handlers are not tied to
> > real-time in any way. Yes, they can be used for RT too but as far as the
> > upstream kernel is involved that's at most an afterthought.
>
> You contradict yourself .. I said "Clearly threading irq handlers does
No he did not.
> have something to do with real time" then you say "they can be used for
> RT too" .. So my comments are clearly correct , they have "something" to
> do with real time. There exists a relationship of some kind or type.
What Ingo is telling you is:
- RT needs threaded interrupts.
- Threaded interrupts do not need RT
My dog is an Italian Greyhound.
Italian Greyhound is a dog, but
a dog is not an Italian Greyhound.
-- 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