On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 15:41 +0200, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > According to my documentation it isn't. A software interrupt is a far call > > with an extra pushf, and a hardware interrupt is protected against recursion > > by the PIC, not by an interrupt flag. > > I disagree with your definition of a system call. The "int 0x80" > changes from user mode to kernel mode so it is much more powerful than a > "far call". Far calls and jumps can change to a inner ring. This is done by a special segment selector containing the segment _and_ the offset to jump to (the offset from the call instruction is ignored). > Also the CPU does protect against recursion and more than > one interrupt coming in at the same time. The PIC also works with the > CPU in this regard, but as I shown in my previous email, the interrupt > flag _does_ protect against it. Showing == claiming? However, my documentation was wrong. http://www.baldwin.cx/386htm/INT.htm -- Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say: 99. Shit!! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/