| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <49A91DE8.7000700@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:20:08 +0100 From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> CC: me@...ipebalbi.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org, felipe.balbi@...ia.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, sameo@...nedhand.com, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs David Brownell wrote: > The other is that Linux needs real support for threaded > interrupts. Almost every I2C (or SPI) device that raises > an IRQ needs its IRQ handler to run in a thread, and most > of them have the same type of workqueue-based hack to > get such a thread. (Some others have bugs instead...) Since when is having an IRQ handler scheduling a workqueue job a hack? In kernels whose IRQ handlers don't sleep, we don't pretend that they could; instead we defer sleeping work to a context which can sleep. Or from another angle: If a driver requires a kernel with sleeping IRQ handlers, why submit it for inclusion into a kernel which does not provide nonatomic context to IRQ handlers? -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--= --=- ===-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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