Robert Hancock wrote:
David Miller wrote:
From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:11:56 -0700
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 16:17 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
(c) "one IRQF_DISABLED means that everything runs disabled". This
is
David Miller wrote:
From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:11:56 -0700
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 16:17 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
(c) "one IRQF_DISABLED means that everything runs disabled". This is
quite possibly bu
From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:11:56 -0700
> On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 16:17 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > (c) "one IRQF_DISABLED means that everything runs disabled". This is
> > > quite possi
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 16:17 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > (c) "one IRQF_DISABLED means that everything runs disabled". This is
> > quite possibly buggy.
>
> (Side note: I'm not claiming this (or it's mirror image (d)) is really any
>
From: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:13:56 -0600
>
> I noticed that we only look at the first action in the chain when
> determining whether to re-enable local interrupts during handle_IRQ_event.
> But we don't try to exclude sharing interrupts with mixtures of
> IRQ
From: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
> Quite frankly, my preference would be (a) followed by (e) or (f), and
> (b)-(d) are in my opinion the worst of the lot with no upsides at all (and
> (b) in particular is pretty much _guaranteed_ to break exist
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> (c) "one IRQF_DISABLED means that everything runs disabled". This is
> quite possibly buggy.
(Side note: I'm not claiming this (or it's mirror image (d)) is really any
better/worse than the current behaviour from a theoretical standpoint, b
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > Another possibility is to force it if *any* of the handlers want
> > IRQF_DISABLED. This seems to work:
>
> Yes, this is consistent with how we handle sharing, we should
> enforce that all the flags on the chain are compatible.
No. It's no bett
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> I noticed that we only look at the first action in the chain when
> determining whether to re-enable local interrupts during handle_IRQ_event.
You can't really share an interrupt handler that wants to run with
interrupts on with one that wants to
I noticed that we only look at the first action in the chain when
determining whether to re-enable local interrupts during handle_IRQ_event.
But we don't try to exclude sharing interrupts with mixtures of
IRQF_DISABLED set and clear. I just tried to do that locally, and one
of my USB ports disapp
10 matches
Mail list logo
