On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:43:34PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Which shouldn't matter as the irq source should be disabled. In fact I
> thought we were guaranteed not to be re-interrupted in a handler
> unless one explicitly does __sti(), has this changed?
A single irq handler won't be re-interrupted, correct. Not even if you do
__sti().
(in the edge triggered IO-APIC case, the irq source is not disabled to avoid
missing events but the highlevel irq logic makes sure that the irq _handler_
won't be run if it was just in-progress somewhere in the system, even
if in another CPU)
But the fact the irq handler is single threaded with respect to itself is
irrelevant with the keyboard_interrupt case because that irq handler will be
recalled by _two_ indipendent irq lines (irq 2 for the keyboard and irq 12 for
the PS/2 Mouse).
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
