On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:29:31PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Ahmed, >
Hi :), > On 10/12/07, Ahmed S. Darwish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 03:38:47PM +0800, Bryan Wu wrote: > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > --- > > > > Hi Bryan, > > > > Why creating module's own kthread to call ad7142_decode and process keycodes > > instead of using a tasklet ? > > > > Yo can't access i2c from a tasklet context. > > > Isn't disabling device interrupts from the begining of the ISR > > "ad7142_interrupt" > > till the kthread "ad7142_thread" got waked-up and scheduled a long time, > > espicially if there's a high load on the userspace side ? > > > > It is OK - you disable a specific interrupt line preventing it from > raising any more IRQs until current one is serviced. Won't this affect system responsiveness if the IRQ line was shared ? > > This is different from disabling interrupts on CPU. > mm, Why disabling interrupts in general. Doesn't IRQ hanlers of the same kind got executed in a serialized fashion even on SMPs ?. If so, why not just wakeup our custom-thread or use workqueues and let them do their business ? It's the first time for me to read others' patches carefully and kindly ask about some explanations. I hope I'm not bothering people with my misunderstandings! (till I get more experienced). Thanks, -- Ahmed S. Darwish HomePage: http://darwish.07.googlepages.com Blog: http://darwish-07.blogspot.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/