On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 04:13:07PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > Ignoring the ARM side of things for a sec, handle_simple_irq() will > > mask() the interrupt in the special case that an interrupt is already in > > the processes of being handled.. handle_simple_irq() also unmasks when > > it finishes handling an interrupt (something real time adds for some > > reason) .. > > > > In terms of threading the irq everything is the same except there is no > > unmask() call when the thread finishes .. > > > > OK, to be honest, I never fully understood the concept of this > "simple_irq". I figured it was because of the ARM architecture.
If you read what I said compared with what Daniel said, you'll see that adding the mask/unmask is _pointless_ because for the case where the simple handler should be used, there is _no_ hardware masking available except via the parent interrupt signal. So actually Daniel's argument misses the basic point - that using handle_simple_irq for non-simple IRQs is just WRONG. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
