INTR_FILTER?

[Andriy Gapon]

on 02/02/2009 13:53 Rui Paulo said the following:
> 
> On 2 Feb 2009, at 11:38, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> 
>> on 30/01/2009 00:30 Rui Paulo said the following:
>>> On 29 Jan 2009, at 17:51, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>>> BTW, INTR_FILTER seems quite useful. Why, then, it is not the default?
>>>
>>> The drivers would have to be ported to INTR_FILTER. Right now, only asmc
>>> is using INTR_FILTER, so I don't think there is much gain in making it
>>> the default.
>>
>> I am not sure about this part. From the code it seems that INTR_FILTER
>> is backward-compatible, i.e. it gives something and doesn't take away
>> anything. The API and conventions seems to be the same too.
>> There could be some edge cases, of course.
> 
> Ok, but why enable it in GENERIC right now if the only driver that uses
> INTR_FILTER is asmc?
> There's not much point in enabling it now. Maybe in the future.

I may be wrong but this could auto-magically improve some cases where
there are shared interrupts between drivers with ithreads. In this case,
I think, their interrupt handler would be run "in parallel" instead of
sequentially.

Also, it would make it easier to write new drivers - one would not have
to code for !INTR_FILTER case.


-- 
Andriy Gapon