Re: Using set_irq_handler in set_irq_type callback?

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1362 bytes --]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 12:07:56PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> When it comes to RT and its thread-based interrupt model, the assumptions
> which these handlers were designed around are no longer true.  What is
> now required is a different handling philosophy - rather than leaving
> the interrupt-time decision about what to do with a signalled interrupt
> to the flow handler, it should be immediately ack'ed and disabled, and
> the interrupt thread scheduled.

That's what the code does at least for the level handler. When the
thread has run then the irq line is reenabled.
 
> It is then up to the interrupt thread to determine how to handle the
> interrupt - if it's really a level interrupt, then the interrupt thread
> has to call the handlers before re-enabling the input.  If it's edge
> based, the input has to be re-enabled before running the handlers (so
> that new edges received during the running of those handlers are
> recognised.)

That's exaclty how the RT code works :) 
 
> So, the technical aspects of handling of interrupts between the RT and
> non-RT cases are quite different, and I feel that we shouldn't be
> re-using the same flow handlers between the two cases.

Why not. It works perfectly fine except for the case where a level
type interrupt uses the edge handler :)

Thanks,

	tglx