On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 01:29:31PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

Hi Ahmed,

Hi :),

On 10/12/07, Ahmed S. Darwish [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 03:38:47PM +0800, Bryan Wu wrote:

quoted

Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <redacted>
---

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.

quoted

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