lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: lockdep and threaded IRQs
David Brownell wrote:
> The other is that Linux needs real support for threaded
> interrupts. Almost every I2C (or SPI) device that raises
> an IRQ needs its IRQ handler to run in a thread, and most
> of them have the same type of workqueue-based hack to
> get such a thread. (Some others have bugs instead...)

Since when is having an IRQ handler scheduling a workqueue job a hack?
In kernels whose IRQ handlers don't sleep, we don't pretend that they
could; instead we defer sleeping work to a context which can sleep.

Or from another angle: If a driver requires a kernel with sleeping IRQ
handlers, why submit it for inclusion into a kernel which does not
provide nonatomic context to IRQ handlers?
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= --=- ===--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-28 12:23    [W:0.129 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site