[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110607105508.1f3033fa@archvile>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:55:08 +0200
From: David Jander <david.jander@...tonic.nl>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why does handle_simple_irq() require IRQ's to be disabled?
Dear Thomas,
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:26:26 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, David Jander wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:18:41 +0200 (CEST)
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > > handle_nested_irq() is your friend.
> >
> > Thanks! This worked without disabling IRQ's.
> > One last question, though:
> >
> > I set up the handler using irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, ...,
> > handle_simple_irq);
> > From the interrupt thread, I call handle_nested_irq(). Is it OK, that in
> > this case, the defined handler function (handle_simple_irq) is not used?
> > Does this still make sense? Wouldn't calling just irq_set_chip() be enough
> > here (it seems to work correctly)?
>
> It should be enough. Though you should mark the demuxed interrupts
> with irq_set_nested_thread(irqnr, true). That avoids that you create
> extra threads for the demuxed interrupts which are never used.
Cool! Now the disturbingly big list of kernel threads is gone :-)
Thanks a lot!
--
David Jander
Protonic Holland.
--
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