linux-kernel - Re: Question about using new request_threaded

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:06:43 +0100
From:	Marcos Lois Bermúdez 
	<marcos.discalis@...il.com>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Question about using new request_threaded_irq

Hi,

I lot of thanks for you fast reply. It seem that i swap the mean of 
handler parameters, so i now see it correct. :).

Excuse for my newbie question.

handler is the primary handler, and if NULL a default primary handler is 
installed, and thread_fn is the thread handler.

I'm a bit confusing because i see a outdated page that talks about this 
new IRQ API, but now i see that it's very outdated:

http://lwn.net/Articles/302043/

Regards.


El 17/12/2012 16:37, Jonathan Corbet escribió:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:11:22 +0100
> Marcos Lois Bermúdez <marcos.discalis@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> For my understand if i call for example:
>>
>> request_threaded_irq(irqmum, NULL, irq_handle, IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING,
>> DEVICE_NAME, priv);
>>
>> This seem to make a old Hard IRQ handler, and inside of this handler
>> sleep APIs can't be used, but i see some SPI drivers that seem to
>> register a IRQ of this form and make API calls that can sleep in the
>> handler.
>
> Not quite.  The prototype for request_threaded_irq() is:
>
> int request_threaded_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler,
> 			 irq_handler_t thread_fn, unsigned long irqflags,
> 			 const char *devname, void *dev_id)
>
> Note the presents of *two* handlers, called "handler" and "thread_fn".
> The first, "handler", is called in interrupt context; it's job is usually
> to quiet the device and return; it cannot sleep.  If it's return value is
> IRQ_WAKE_THREAD, the thread_fn() will be called in process context; it
> *can* sleep.  In the example you cite, there is no immediate handler, only
> the thread_fn(); the call to a blocking function from within the
> thread_fn() is correct.
>
> Hope that helps,
>
> jon
>
> Jonathan Corbet / LWN.net / corbet@....net
>

--
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/