On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Wouldn't it be better if we could express the nesting property from > within genirq, so that we can do things like: > > register_chip_nested(parent_chip, parent_irq, slave_chip); > > And let genirq set-up the needed magic to make the nesting work. I've been requesting such IRQ chaining support for some time now ... if the ears are now listening, that kind of direction should be pursued. > Also, how important is it that subhandler1..n run in their own thread? Completely unimportant in a practical sense. Undesirable, even; wasteful to allocate all those stack pages and keep them idle most of the time. There might be an argument that the design isn't technicaly done until that model *can* be supported. On the flip side, last time this came up there was no "customer demand" for that ... it was all "supplier push". > That is, can't we let them run from the thread that is otherwise waiting > for the completino anyway? That would be far preferable, yes. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
