From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261762AbUB0H0J (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:26:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261785AbUB0H0J (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:26:09 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:44780 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261762AbUB0H0G (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 02:26:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:25:51 +0100 From: Arjan van de Ven To: "Grover, Andrew" Cc: Mark Gross , Tim Bird , root@chaos.analogic.com, linux kernel Subject: Re: Why no interrupt priorities? Message-ID: <20040227072551.GB5695@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 05:36:34PM -0800, Grover, Andrew wrote: > Is the assumption that hardirq handlers are superfast also the reason > why Linux calls all handlers on a shared interrupt, even if the first > handler reports it was for its device? I guess so; and in addition it may avoid future irq's in a NAPI like way :) Or it's just plain dead silly :) --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAPvD+xULwo51rQBIRAnCdAJ4pDB+Zgq13yitMYie3orVfTWUI6gCgqLQw AVa8N4ggziRyw+dexBiFCFs= =h0D8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CUfgB8w4ZwR/yMy5--