Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> writes:
> * Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ingo would it be reasonable to get a wait queue so I can wait for an
>> irq that needs the delayed disable action to actually become masked?
>
> that might make sense, but what will do the wakeup - incidental IRQ
> arriving on the new CPU?
That is what I was thinking.
> Isnt that a bit risky - maybe the device wont
> generate IRQs for a really long time.
Well this is in a user space context called from user space and it
exactly matches the semantics we have now. If we make it an
interruptible sleep the user space process shouldn't block.
I guess the other thing to do is do it in a non-block fashion
and just call schedule_work from the interrupt context when the
irq is disabled. For i386 with it's in kernel irq scheduler
that might be better.
I think the nasty case is probably what do we do when it is
the timer interrupt we are dealing with.
Hmm. I think I should look up what the rules are for
calling local_irq_enable when in interrupt context. That
might be another way to satisfy this problem.
If local irqs are enabled I don't have to worry about the irr
register.
You've got me brainstorming now.
Eric
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
