On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 12:41 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:21:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 12:05 +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > > > > > > > Why not do the whole thing in an interrupt task as the whole thing > > > > sounds like something that shouldn't be done in interrupt context, > > > > right? Now that we have this type of functionality, we should take > > > > advantage of it :) > > > > > > Ok, I think I move the IOMMU interrupt handling to a tasklet. > > > > > tasklet is softirq context, and is not what gregkh was talking about. > > > > You'd still need to change the klist spinlock to be softirq-safe. > > Ah right. Thanks for pointing this out. I couldn't find much about the > interrupt tasks. Is it about the request_threaded_irq interface? And > this would be run in the context of a kernel thread, right? Right, request_threaded_irq() is what was meant, the comment there does a good job of describing how to use it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
