[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902281219.54200.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:19:53 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, me@...ipebalbi.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
felipe.balbi@...ia.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
sameo@...nedhand.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs
On Saturday 28 February 2009, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Ah, so there /is/ a threaded IRQ handler implementation in
> the mainline, down in some driver framework...
One that's a bit more powerful than the recent patch
proposal, I'd say, since it chains.
> Why don't these drivers simply use <linux/workqueue.h>?
Most do. In fact, that one *does* ... what's your point?
If I hadn't know that more generic threaded IRQ support
was already on the way, I might have done more with that
particular driver than just massive cleanup. I stopped
short of some changes that it seemed genirq should obviate
before too long. As always, more cleanup *could* be done.
- Dave
--
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