Re: [PATCH] fix a Sparse warning in the arch/x86/kernel/irq_work.cfile

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:09:34 +0530
anish singh <anish198519851985@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> > Instead, it calls irq_work() to do the event within a normal interrupt
> > context. Some architectures have the ability to trigger an interrupt on
> 
> irq_work processes event in normal interrupt context as you said but
> why interrupt context ? Is it because of the fast processing which is
> needed? Can we use softirq as anyways we have interrupt
> disabled(functions which calls irq_work makes sure of that right?).
> Hope I am not asking something very obvious.
>

We just need to make sure the work gets done outside of problem areas.
Usually, outside of locks, and specifically locks that disable
interrupts. Now, if irq_work() is needed outside of a lock that
only disables softirq, then you are correct, this would not be enough.
But really, because it's called "irq_work()" and not "softirq_work()",
you shouldn't be using locks that don't disable interrupts with a
irq_work handler.

Making it happen in softirq will just complicate the process. Real
interrupts are just easier to implement and suits the job well.

-- Steve
--
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/