Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <torvalds@...>
Cc: <matthew@...>, <mingo@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Date: Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 7:14 pm

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:04:42 -0700 (PDT)


I look at some cases, such as EHEA on powerpc which is a pretty
modern driver written by not clueless folks, and wonder if they
do it because they know the IRQ is non-shared, they know their
interrupt handler is insanely simple and short, and just want to
avoid the overhead of that sti()/cli() in the caller.

All the EHEA interrupt handler does is unconditionally set a state bit
and schedule a softirq, then return.

The powerpc folks do delayed IRQ enable/disable using software state,
but perhaps these drivers were written before that.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
IRQF_DISABLED problem, Matthew Wilcox, (Thu Jul 26, 4:13 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jul 26, 4:41 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, David Miller, (Thu Jul 26, 6:23 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jul 26, 7:04 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, Linus Torvalds, (Thu Jul 26, 7:17 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, Arjan van de Ven, (Fri Jul 27, 4:11 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, David Miller, (Fri Jul 27, 4:50 pm)
Re: IRQF_DISABLED problem, David Miller, (Thu Jul 26, 7:14 pm)