[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimlSBEhl58CNuScKjxbqdTwTYgqo7vrHTcd1x9G@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:01:47 +0200
From: Esben Haabendal <esbenhaabendal@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...terjones.org>,
Esben Haabendal <eha@...edevelopment.dk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
joachim.eastwood@...ron.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: support IRQ_NESTED_THREAD with non-threaded
interrupt handlers
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> You may want to give request_any_context_irq() a try (available since the
>> latest merge window). It still requires your driver to be changed, but it
>> should then work in both threaded and non-threaded cases.
>
> And it nicely annotates that somebody looked at the driver in
> question. That's the rule of least surprise and does not impose checks
> on the fast path.
What in particular should I be looking for in a driver before changing
from request_irq() to request_any_context_irq() ?
As for not checking in the fast path, it should be noted that this is "only"
in handle_nested_irq(), which is only used in few interupt controller
drivers, all of which I assume are generally not considered very "fast".
Unless all interrupt handlers should be rewritten to be able to in both
thread and interrupt context, I fail to se the conflict between the patch
proposed and the work being done on request_any_context_irq().
/Esben
--
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