From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965064AbcIVUtn (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:49:43 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:39333 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933263AbcIVUtl (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:49:41 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 22:47:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Leo Li cc: Marc Zyngier , Marc Zyngier , lkml Subject: Re: recommended use of request_any_context_irq() In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <57E391E0.6020202@arm.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 22 Sep 2016, Leo Li wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > There is strictly no reason to perform a blanket change of all the > > drivers. What would be the reason to change them other than to cater for > > a contrived use case that may never happen? > > Maybe we could do blanket change to drivers that meet certain > criteria? At least we should improve the messaging when a driver > cannot request interrupt due to nested threading. Nested threading is a result of requesting an any context interrupt not something which is there already. > Right now, it might take quite some time for a developer unfamiliar with > the threaded interrupt to figure out the problem. Did you have issues with a driver which was not able to request an interrupt? If yes, please explain in detail what the failure was and why you think that this should be changed. If not, please explain which problem you are trying to solve. Thanks, tglx