Re: [PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > A: No. > Q: Should I include

Re: [PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > A: No. > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? > >

Re: [PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at

Re: [PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at

Re: [PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

Hello Greg, Thanks a lot for your prompt reply! First of, this is my first patch submission to the Kernel, so thanks a lot for your additional guidelines here regarding missing pieces. Please don't judge me hard here. :) I would add new DT bindings to Documentation and contact DT maintainers to

Re: [PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

Hello Greg, Thanks a lot for your prompt reply! First of, this is my first patch submission to the Kernel, so thanks a lot for your additional guidelines here regarding missing pieces. Please don't judge me hard here. :) I would add new DT bindings to Documentation and contact DT maintainers to

Re: [PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 03:55:40PM +0100, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote: > Certain Kernel preemption models are using threaded interrupt handlers, > which is in general quite beneficial. However, threaded handlers > introducing additional scheduler overhead, when the bottom-half thread > should be woken

Re: [PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 03:55:40PM +0100, Andrey Zhizhikin wrote: > Certain Kernel preemption models are using threaded interrupt handlers, > which is in general quite beneficial. However, threaded handlers > introducing additional scheduler overhead, when the bottom-half thread > should be woken

[PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

Certain Kernel preemption models are using threaded interrupt handlers, which is in general quite beneficial. However, threaded handlers introducing additional scheduler overhead, when the bottom-half thread should be woken up and scheduled for execution. This can result is additional latency,

[PATCH] uio: Allow to take irq bottom-half into irq_handler with additional dt-binding

Certain Kernel preemption models are using threaded interrupt handlers, which is in general quite beneficial. However, threaded handlers introducing additional scheduler overhead, when the bottom-half thread should be woken up and scheduled for execution. This can result is additional latency,