[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <r2l87a5b0801004220351h4ba2d1ect49c33893a30806e9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:51:06 +0100
From: Will Newton <will.newton@...il.com>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Threaded irq handler question
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Yong Zhang <yong.zhang@...driver.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 05:35:32PM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> My problem is that this structure does not work, because once I call
>> disable_irq_nosync() on the irq in the check handler the thread will
>> no longer run because the irq is disabled. However if I don't call
>> disable_irq_nosync() I will get endless irqs because the line is
>> level-triggered and will not be deasserted until the thread has run.
>>
>> Could someone tell me what I'm doing wrong here?
>
> Does IRQF_ONESHOT meet your need?
Almost I think, but I believe if my check handler does not wake the
thread then I don't get another interrupt ever. I can fix this by
making my check handler always return WAKE_THREAD, which is slightly
sub-optimal, but not a big problem.
Thank you for your help!
--
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