On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:25:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The frequency of invoking the gic_arch_extn callbacks is exactly equal
> to the frequency of interrupts in the system which go through the GIC
> at least for mask/unmask/eoi. The frequency of calls per interrupt
> depends on the
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> So there's not much point discussing this with you until you:
>
> (a) calm down
Done so :)
> (b) analyse it properly and work out the frequency under which each
> class of IRQ (those >= 32 and those < 32) call into these functions.
Here you
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
So there's not much point discussing this with you until you:
(a) calm down
Done so :)
(b) analyse it properly and work out the frequency under which each
class of IRQ (those = 32 and those 32) call into these functions.
Here you go:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:25:49PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
The frequency of invoking the gic_arch_extn callbacks is exactly equal
to the frequency of interrupts in the system which go through the GIC
at least for mask/unmask/eoi. The frequency of calls per interrupt
depends on the
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:55AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Russell,
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:41:53AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > @all who feel responsible for gic_arch_extn
> > >
> > > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Thomas
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:12:55AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Russell,
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:41:53AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
@all who feel responsible for gic_arch_extn
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Russell,
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:41:53AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > @all who feel responsible for gic_arch_extn
> >
> > On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > I'm going to reply in a separate mail on this, because you have
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:41:53AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> @all who feel responsible for gic_arch_extn
>
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I'm going to reply in a separate mail on this, because you have
> > brought this to my attention, but you are not responsible in the
@all who feel responsible for gic_arch_extn
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> I'm going to reply in a separate mail on this, because you have
> brought this to my attention, but you are not responsible in the first
> place for this brainfart.
Who came up with that gic_arch_extn
@all who feel responsible for gic_arch_extn
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I'm going to reply in a separate mail on this, because you have
brought this to my attention, but you are not responsible in the first
place for this brainfart.
Who came up with that gic_arch_extn concept
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:41:53AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
@all who feel responsible for gic_arch_extn
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I'm going to reply in a separate mail on this, because you have
brought this to my attention, but you are not responsible in the first
Russell,
On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:41:53AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
@all who feel responsible for gic_arch_extn
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
I'm going to reply in a separate mail on this, because you have
12 matches
Mail list logo
