Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: ... This said, I'm going to publish the shirq patch (after finalizing ISR return bits, where I still have some doubts) without enable/disable nesting support. It can be supported at

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Philippe Gerum wrote: >> >>> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > ... > This said, I'm going to publish the shirq patch (after finalizing ISR > return > bits, > where I still have some doubts) without enable

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: ... This said, I'm going to publish the shirq patch (after finalizing ISR return bits, where I still have some doubts) without enable/disable nesting support. It can be supported at some point of time later,

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Philippe Gerum wrote: Jan Kiszka wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: ... This said, I'm going to publish the shirq patch (after finalizing ISR return bits, where I still have some doubts) without enable/disable nesting support. It can be supported at some point of time later,

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Philippe Gerum wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >>> ... >>> This said, I'm going to publish the shirq patch (after finalizing ISR >>> return >>> bits, >>> where I still have some doubts) without enable/disable nesting support. >>> It can be supported at some point of time la

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: ... This said, I'm going to publish the shirq patch (after finalizing ISR return bits, where I still have some doubts) without enable/disable nesting support. It can be supported at some point of time later, if it's really needed. Regarding enable/d

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > ... > This said, I'm going to publish the shirq patch (after finalizing ISR return > bits, > where I still have some doubts) without enable/disable nesting support. > It can be supported at some point of time later, if it's really needed. > Regarding enable/disable nesti

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

> Ok, general bottom line regarding IRQ support (and the rest): > > 1- we want the rules applicable to the common case to be simple, well-defined and > straightforward. This applies to the ISR return value as exposed. > 2- some requirements might fall outside of the common case; to support them,

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > For RTDM I'm now almost determined to rework the API in way that only > HANDLED/UNHANDLED (or what ever their names will be) get exported, any > additional guru features will remain excluded as long as we have no > clean usage policy for them. Good. Then let's go f

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > For RTDM I'm now almost determined to rework the API in way that only > HANDLED/UNHANDLED (or what ever their names will be) get exported, any > additional guru features will remain excluded as long as we have no > clean usage policy for them. Good. Then let's go f

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> For RTDM I'm now almost determined to rework the API in way that only >> HANDLED/UNHANDLED (or what ever their names will be) get exported, any >> additional guru features will remain excluded as long as we have no >> clean usage policy for them. > > Good. Then let's go

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> For RTDM I'm now almost determined to rework the API in way that only >> HANDLED/UNHANDLED (or what ever their names will be) get exported, any >> additional guru features will remain excluded as long as we have no >> clean usage policy for them. > > Good. Then let's go

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > For RTDM I'm now almost determined to rework the API in way that only > HANDLED/UNHANDLED (or what ever their names will be) get exported, any > additional guru features will remain excluded as long as we have no > clean usage policy for them. Good. Then let's go f

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

> For RTDM I'm now almost determined to rework the API in way that only > HANDLED/UNHANDLED (or what ever their names will be) get exported, any > additional guru features will remain excluded as long as we have no > clean usage policy for them. Good. Then let's go for HANDLED, UNHANDLED - we m

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > For RTDM I'm now almost determined to rework the API in way that only > HANDLED/UNHANDLED (or what ever their names will be) get exported, any > additional guru features will remain excluded as long as we have no > clean usage policy for them. Good. Then let's go f

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

> For RTDM I'm now almost determined to rework the API in way that only > HANDLED/UNHANDLED (or what ever their names will be) get exported, any > additional guru features will remain excluded as long as we have no > clean usage policy for them. Good. Then let's go for HANDLED, UNHANDLED - we m

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > > HANDLED > NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared >> handlers: >> > >> > HANDLED >> > NOT_HANDLED >> > >> > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the >> interrupt (which >> > makes sense, since this wo

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > > HANDLED > NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the other [shared] handlers). HANDLED_

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

> Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > >   HANDLED >   NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the other [shared] handlers). HANDLED_NOEBNABLE could be supported too.

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> On 21/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: >> >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> > >> > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared >> > interrupts. >> > >>

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared interrupts. On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: A number of questions arise: 1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the inte

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: On 21/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared > interrupts. > > > On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* < [E

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 21/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:>> N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared> interrupts.>>> On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: A number of questions arise:> > 1. What hap

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 21/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared> interrupts.>>> On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> A number of questions arise: 1. What happens if one of the shared handler

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Anders Blomdell wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > > HANDLED > NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared >> handlers: >> > >> > HANDLED >> > NOT_HANDLED >> > >> > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the >> interrupt (which >> > makes sense, since this wo

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared > interrupts. > > > On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> A number of questions arise: >> >> 1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the interrupt >> asserted, >

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> let's make yet another revision of the bits : >>> >>> new XN_ISR_HANDLED == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE >>> >>> ok. >>> >>> new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE >>> >>>

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > > HANDLED > NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the other [shared] handlers). HANDLED_

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

> Good point, leaves us with 2 possible return values for shared handlers: > >   HANDLED >   NOT_HANDLED > > i.e. shared handlers should never defer the end'ing of the interrupt (which > makes sense, since this would affect the other [shared] handlers). HANDLED_NOEBNABLE could be supported too.

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared interrupts. On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: A number of questions arise: 1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the inte

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> On 21/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > wrote: >> >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> > >> > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared >> > interrupts. >> > >>

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: On 21/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared > interrupts. > > > On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* < [E

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 21/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:>> N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared> interrupts.>>> On 20/02/06, *Anders Blomdell* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: A number of questions arise:> > 1. What hap

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 21/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared> interrupts.>>> On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> A number of questions arise: 1. What happens if one of the shared handler

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared > interrupts. > > > On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> A number of questions arise: >> >> 1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the interrupt >> asserted, >

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Anders Blomdell wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> let's make yet another revision of the bits : >>> >>> new XN_ISR_HANDLED == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE >>> >>> ok. >>> >>> new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE >>> >>>

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Hi Dmitry, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: Hi Jan, let's make yet another revision of the bits : new XN_ISR_HANDLED == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE ok. new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE ok. new XN_ISR_PROPAGATE == XN_ISR_CHAINED ok. Just to make sure

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared interrupts. On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A number of questions arise:1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the interrupt asserted, returns NOENABLE|HANDLED and another return only HANDLE

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Jan Kiszka wrote: Hi Dmitry, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: Hi Jan, let's make yet another revision of the bits : new XN_ISR_HANDLED == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE ok. new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE ok. new XN_ISR_PROPAGATE == XN_ISR_CHAINED ok. Just to make sure

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

N.B. Amongst other things, some thoughts about CHAINED with shared interrupts. On 20/02/06, Anders Blomdell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A number of questions arise:1. What happens if one of the shared handlers leaves the interrupt asserted, returns NOENABLE|HANDLED and another return only HANDLE

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Hi Dmitry, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Hi Jan, > > let's make yet another revision of the bits : > > new XN_ISR_HANDLED == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE > > ok. > > new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE > > ok. > > new XN_ISR_PROPAGATE == XN_ISR_CHAINED > > ok. > Just to m

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Hi Jan, let's make yet another revision of the bits : new XN_ISR_HANDLED  == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE ok. new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE ok. new XN_ISR_PROPAGATE == XN_ISR_CHAINED ok. new XN_ISR_NOINT == ? does it suppose the interrupt line to be .end-ed (enab

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Hi Dmitry, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Hi Jan, > > let's make yet another revision of the bits : > > new XN_ISR_HANDLED == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE > > ok. > > new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE > > ok. > > new XN_ISR_PROPAGATE == XN_ISR_CHAINED > > ok. > Just to m

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Hi Jan, let's make yet another revision of the bits : new XN_ISR_HANDLED  == old XN_ISR_HANDLED + old XN_ISR_NO_ENABLE ok. new XN_ISR_NOENABLE == ~ old XN_ISR_ENABLE ok. new XN_ISR_PROPAGATE == XN_ISR_CHAINED ok. new XN_ISR_NOINT == ? does it suppose the interrupt line to be .end-ed (enab

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patc

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:>>> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve this before mergi

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve this before merging (i.e. make XN_ISR_HANDLED non-zero)? >>> >>

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve this>> before merging ( i.e. make XN_ISR_HANDLED non-zero)?>>> Ok, XN_ISR_NOINT is removed in favor of XN_

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve this >> before merging (i.e. make XN_ISR_HANDLED non-zero)? > > > Ok, XN_ISR_NOINT is removed in favor of XN_ISR_HANDLED which is now > non-zero. > Act

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patc

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:>>> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve this before mergi

[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve thisbefore merging ( i.e. make XN_ISR_HANDLED non-zero)? Ok, XN_ISR_NOINT is removed in favor of XN_ISR_HANDLED which is now non-zero. Actually, at first I wanted to make it just th

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve this before merging (i.e. make XN_ISR_HANDLED non-zero)? >>> >>

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dmitry Adamushko wrote:> On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve this>> before merging ( i.e. make XN_ISR_HANDLED non-zero)?>>> Ok, XN_ISR_NOINT is removed in favor of XN_

Re: [Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve this >> before merging (i.e. make XN_ISR_HANDLED non-zero)? > > > Ok, XN_ISR_NOINT is removed in favor of XN_ISR_HANDLED which is now > non-zero. > Act

[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

On 16/02/06, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Hmm, I still find XN_ISR_NOINT in the patch. Shouldn't we solve thisbefore merging ( i.e. make XN_ISR_HANDLED non-zero)? Ok, XN_ISR_NOINT is removed in favor of XN_ISR_HANDLED which is now non-zero. Actually, at first I wanted to make it just th

[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Hello everybody, > > being inspired by successful results of tests conducted recently by Jan & > team, > I'm presenting the final (yep, yet another final :) combo-patch. > > The shirq support now is optional, so that > > CONFIG_XENO_OPT_SHIRQ_LEVEL -enables shirq fo

[Xenomai-core] Re: [PATCH] Shared interrupts (ready to merge)

Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > Hello everybody, > > being inspired by successful results of tests conducted recently by Jan & > team, > I'm presenting the final (yep, yet another final :) combo-patch. > > The shirq support now is optional, so that > > CONFIG_XENO_OPT_SHIRQ_LEVEL -enables shirq fo