Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC patch 0/5] genirq: add infrastructure for threaded interrupt handlers | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:48:05 -0700 |
| |
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
| |