Re: [patch 0/2] Add support for threaded interrupt handlers - V3

[Thomas Gleixner]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/