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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site