lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RFC patch 0/5] genirq: add infrastructure for threaded interrupt handlers
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 16:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
    > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 21:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > > > Clearly threading irq handlers does have something to do with real
    > > > > > > time, unless this patch isn't actually threading anything ..
    > > >
    > > > Well, that's clearly wrong: threaded IRQ handlers are not tied to
    > > > real-time in any way. Yes, they can be used for RT too but as far as the
    > > > upstream kernel is involved that's at most an afterthought.
    > >
    > > You contradict yourself .. I said "Clearly threading irq handlers does
    >
    > No he did not.

    Yes, he did.

    > > have something to do with real time" then you say "they can be used for
    > > RT too" .. So my comments are clearly correct , they have "something" to
    > > do with real time. There exists a relationship of some kind or type.
    >
    >
    > What Ingo is telling you is:
    >
    > - RT needs threaded interrupts.
    >
    > - Threaded interrupts do not need RT
    >
    > My dog is an Italian Greyhound.
    >
    > Italian Greyhound is a dog, but
    > a dog is not an Italian Greyhound.

    My comments are basically bidirectional , so what your saying doesn't
    make any sense .. I said basically, that dogs and "Italian Greyhounds"
    have _some_ connection .. Why are we even debating this.

    Daniel



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-02 22:51    [W:0.149 / U:0.196 seconds]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean