On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:08:53AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 09:59 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > As long as it's rare (which it is) i dont see a problem: you can enable > > > interrupts in the handler by using local_irq_enable(), like the IDE PIO > > > drivers do. That way it's documented a bit better as well, because it shows > > > the precise source of the latency, with a big comment explaining it, etc. > > > > I don't think it's as rare as you think particularly in embedded, and the > > moment you start explicitly using local_irq_enable() you've simply moved > > the underlying problem back and made it far harder to grep for. > > We've got local_irq_enable_in_hardirq() which should be used and can > easily be grep'ed for. > > But yes, I would much prefer to simply convert these known slow handlers > to threaded interrupts. That could be potentially hundreds in old obscure drivers all over the tree. -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html