Re: Why does handle_simple_irq() require IRQ's to be disabled?

[David Jander]

Dear Thomas,

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 10:26:26 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, David Jander wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:18:41 +0200 (CEST)
> > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > handle_nested_irq() is your friend.
> > 
> > Thanks! This worked without disabling IRQ's.
> > One last question, though:
> > 
> > I set up the handler using irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, ...,
> > handle_simple_irq);
> > From the interrupt thread, I call handle_nested_irq(). Is it OK, that in
> > this case, the defined handler function (handle_simple_irq) is not used?
> > Does this still make sense? Wouldn't calling just irq_set_chip() be enough
> > here (it seems to work correctly)?
> 
> It should be enough. Though you should mark the demuxed interrupts
> with irq_set_nested_thread(irqnr, true). That avoids that you create
> extra threads for the demuxed interrupts which are never used.

Cool! Now the disturbingly big list of kernel threads is gone :-)

Thanks a lot!

-- 
David Jander
Protonic Holland.
--
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/