Re: [RFC patch 0/5] genirq: add infrastructure for threaded interrupt handlers

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 16:14 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 21:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > Clearly threading irq handlers does have something to do with real 
> > > > > > time, unless this patch isn't actually threading anything ..
> > > 
> > > Well, that's clearly wrong: threaded IRQ handlers are not tied to 
> > > real-time in any way. Yes, they can be used for RT too but as far as the 
> > > upstream kernel is involved that's at most an afterthought.
> > 
> > You contradict yourself .. I said "Clearly threading irq handlers does
> 
> No he did not.

Yes, he did.

> > have something to do with real time" then you say "they can be used for 
> > RT too" .. So my comments are clearly correct , they have "something" to
> > do with real time. There exists a relationship of some kind or type.
> 
> 
> What Ingo is telling you is:
> 
>   - RT needs threaded interrupts.
> 
>   - Threaded interrupts do not need RT
> 
> My dog is an Italian Greyhound.
> 
> Italian Greyhound is a dog, but
> a dog is not an Italian Greyhound.

My comments are basically bidirectional , so what your saying doesn't
make any sense .. I said basically, that dogs and "Italian Greyhounds"
have _some_ connection .. Why are we even debating this.

Daniel