lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 0/2] Add support for threaded interrupt handlers - V3
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, David Brownell wrote:

> On Tuesday 24 March 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, David Brownell wrote:
> > > On Monday 23 March 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > I'm still looking into a clean solution for the threaded demultiplex
> > > > handler case which was brought up by Dave to allow both the handling
> > > > of the demultiplexed devices in the context of the demultiplexer
> > > > interrupt thread and the wakeup of separate handler threads. But this
> > > > is an orthogonal extension of the existing patch set and does not
> > > > change the general design.
> > >
> > > No comments on the patch I sent?
> >
> > Looked at it briefly, but I still try to figure out what the best
> > solution for this will be. As I said I'd like to support both
> > variants:
> >
> > 1) demux handlers run in the primary interrupt thread context
> > 2) demux handlers kick their own handler threads
>
> I have no need for the latter, at least in current systems.

Groan, the fact that you do not need it is definitely _not_ a good
reason to just add a irq_is_sufficient_for_dave_handler.

> > I don't want to special case that. See above.
>
> What's a special case though? If you're serious about
> wanting to support more than one case, it's always going
> to be possible to call some of them "special". As in,
> "threaded IRQs are a special case in genirq". That should
> not mean they don't get handled.

I don't like the idea of another action dispatcher in a special case
handler. The goal is to reuse the code i.e. simple_handler and
handle_IRQ_event. It just needs some thoughts to implement it in a
sane way.

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-25 08:43    [W:0.054 / U:0.864 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site