On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 05:39:13PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 10/28/2014 05:04 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > >Is that going to play nicely with the fact that the interrupt can be > >shared and the desire to (AFAICT) do NAPI style stuff with the interrupt > >disabled for long periods? > Threaded interrupts got support for interrupt sharing a while ago, so I > guess yes. I think it will even work better than the tasklet approach. You > can configure the IRQ to disable itself as long as the thread is running. I know you *can* share threaded interrupts, I'm just not sure that hogging the threaded handler plays nicely with other users. Though now I look at this again tx_fifo_high is a "constant" so it's not actually trying to do a NAPI type mitigation thing and this is really just an open coded threaded interrupt as you say.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
