On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 13:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Michael Neuhauser wrote: > [...] > > On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 12:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Normally unmask is called in do_IRQ() after the handler. > > > > This is unchanged with Adeos, i.e. unmask() is still called in do_IRQ() > > after the handler. I was talking about non Linux interrupts where you > > have to do it yourself. > > by "do_IRQ" I mean either Linux *do_IRQ, or "old" RTAI dispatch_irq, or > the trampoline-handler... IMHO, you shouldn't have to do it yourself. I am > used to the "standard" > > mask_ack(); > handler(); > unmask(); > > sequence. Is anything wrong with it?
If you are asking about the rationale behind the design then I'm the wrong person to ask. I've just stared long at the existing code and modelled mine after it. Mike -- Dr. Michael Neuhauser phone: +43 1 789 08 49 - 30 Firmix Software GmbH fax: +43 1 789 08 49 - 55 Vienna/Austria/Europe email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Embedded Linux Development and Services http://www.firmix.at/
