![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Doug Ledford writes: > Richard Gooch wrote: > > > > As I wrote to someone else, most device drivers are multi-kernel drivers. > > > In that scenario, it doesn't help to change things. It doesn't solve the > > > 2.0.35 IRQ conflicts when this type of thing happens. > > > > On the other hand, if 2.0.x is fundamentally broken in this regard, > > then with 2.1.x (or at least) 2.3.x we don't want to chain ourselves > > to a broken interface. > > No, I fully agree with you that we shouldn't chain ourselves to > something, I was just pointing out that there is an actual reason to > argue over the correct usage of SA_INTERRUPT in 2.0.x since many of > us are still maintaining drivers there. My original arguments were > basically that I don't think SA_INTERRUPT really buys a SCSI driver > anything so I personally thought Gerard should take it out of his > driver since doing so would solve other problems. However, if the > ncr cards can generate as many as 10,500 interrupts per second, > maybe his driver does need the SA_INTERRUPT flag :) Or a mechanism to say "don't run BH when I'm done". Having SA_INTERRUPT=0 in 2.1.x or 2.3.x would be safe if we can throttle BH processing, right? > > We may be faced with the necessity of having an > > incompatible interface. FS code has had to live with a changing API, I > > don't see why SCSI or network drivers should be treated differently. > > We haven't been :) After all, we have the new_eh code in there :) Erm, I assume you mean "new_bh"? Or is "new_eh" something I've missed? > > > I think this is the path Linus is headed down in 2.1 already. > > > It just isn't all the way there yet. > > > Really? Looking at kernel/softirq.c I don't see that. Where should I > > cast my gaze? > > Sorry, I should clarify that. The code is headed in the direction of > SA_INTERRUPT being meaningless. Not that something else has been put in > place to replace it. It no longer does a lot of the things it used to do. Ah, OK. So do you feel that a mechanism in BH processing to self-throttle is a good approach? If so, a patch for 2.3.x may turn up... Regards, Richard.... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:44 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||