Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756701AbZCYHlM (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:41:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753604AbZCYHlC (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:41:02 -0400 Received: from www.tglx.de ([62.245.132.106]:54396 "EHLO www.tglx.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751283AbZCYHlA (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 03:41:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:39:11 +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: <200903241638.11724.david-b@pacbell.net> Message-ID: References: <20090323172814.548471871@linutronix.de> <200903241444.44644.david-b@pacbell.net> <200903241638.11724.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: 1919 Lines: 47 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 -- 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/