Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753272AbZCXV5X (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:57:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750879AbZCXV5O (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:57:14 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:58824 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750699AbZCXV5N (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:57:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:54:54 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: David Brownell cc: LKML , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Hellwig , Arjan van de Veen , Jon Masters , Sven Dietrich Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] Add support for threaded interrupt handlers - V3 In-Reply-To: <200903241444.44644.david-b@pacbell.net> Message-ID: References: <20090323172814.548471871@linutronix.de> <200903241444.44644.david-b@pacbell.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1436 Lines: 35 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 > Or is that what you meant by "orthogonal"? Admittedly that > patch sort of begs the question about which request_irq() > variant should be used for such demuxed IRQs; the "current" > assumption is that request_irq() suffices, but that could > be improved so the handle_threaded_irq() flow handler could > use the action->thread_fn not action->handler. I don't want to special case that. See above. Thanks, tglx -- 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/