Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs

[Stefan Richter]

David Brownell wrote:
> The other is that Linux needs real support for threaded
> interrupts.  Almost every I2C (or SPI) device that raises
> an IRQ needs its IRQ handler to run in a thread, and most
> of them have the same type of workqueue-based hack to
> get such a thread.  (Some others have bugs instead...)

Since when is having an IRQ handler scheduling a workqueue job a hack?
In kernels whose IRQ handlers don't sleep, we don't pretend that they
could; instead we defer sleeping work to a context which can sleep.

Or from another angle:  If a driver requires a kernel with sleeping IRQ
handlers, why submit it for inclusion into a kernel which does not
provide nonatomic context to IRQ handlers?
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= --=- ===--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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/