Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762794AbZCQHyc (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:54:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752742AbZCQHyX (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:54:23 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:60254 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751396AbZCQHyW (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:54:22 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:54:17 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Arjan van de Veen , Steven Rostedt , Jon Masters Subject: Re: [patch 3/4] genirq: add a quick check handler Message-ID: <20090317075417.GD3331@infradead.org> References: <20090226131336.423054348@linutronix.de> <20090226131719.640887792@linutronix.de> <20090228222408.GB7797@infradead.org> <1236283149.20484.31.camel@sven.thebigcorporation.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1236283149.20484.31.camel@sven.thebigcorporation.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1313 Lines: 28 On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 11:59:09AM -0800, Sven-Thorsten Dietrich wrote: > Most of the IRQ handler, whether run in a thread or IRQ context, will be > the same code - so what you are proposing would have to eliminate code > duplication as well as heavy runtime branching overhead. > > Ultimately, no matter how its done, the concept of disabling IRQ assert > at the device level, rather than the apic level, is the optimal > "correct" implementation. > > Formulating that into the code, as Thomas proposed with the quickcheck, > supplies structural demarcation for semi as well as software design. Umm, the code will be look more or less the same either way. I just think overloading the current handler to mean two different things is a bad idea. For a driver using a quick disable handler and a long slow threaded one the only difference is naming the two functions differently. I wonder if you're still thinking in the way of a -RT like setup where threaded interrupts can be enabled and disabled globally? I don't think we should ever do that for mainline. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/