From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ke Wei Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9][RESEND] mvsas : interrupt handling Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:23:44 +0800 Message-ID: <47F0BBB0.7030606@marvell.com> References: <47EB449F.20201@marvell.com> <1206889797.4224.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Reply-To: kewei@marvell.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from host2.marvell.com ([65.219.4.2]:49269 "EHLO maili.marvell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751713AbYCaKXx (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:23:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1206889797.4224.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org James Bottomley wrote: > This tasklet usage doesn't quite look right. What a tasklet does is > defer processing until after all interrupts have completed. It's > commonly used for aggregation, which is why scsi_done simply queues for > the block softirq (tasklet). However, for mvsas, I don't see any > benefit to defering the work to a tasklet. OK, I understood. I will remove tasklet feature. > > Additionally, for the non MSI case, doesn't the interrupt, which is > level triggered, fail to deassert because we haven't cleared any > registers? > I don't understood what you said. What's your meaning about non MSI case. Thank you. Ke