On Sat, 21 Apr 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > especially if you want to do it right on the BX. But you can do this and rtlinux
> > > does
> >
> > There is already desc->handler->ack(irq) in do_IRQ which does that. Is any
> > more special handling needed?
>
> You need to keep the IRQ line masked
> > especially if you want to do it right on the BX. But you can do this and rtlinux
> > does
>
> There is already desc->handler->ack(irq) in do_IRQ which does that. Is any
> more special handling needed?
You need to keep the IRQ line masked not just ack it. The code for handling all
the BX and
> > testb %al, intr_pending
> > jnz somewhere_away_to_handle_defered_interrupt
> >
> > And - of course - interrupt checks intr_lock in its entry and if it is
> > zero, sets intr_pending and exits immediatelly.
>
> And immediately gets called again. You have to mask the irq which is non t
> testb %al, intr_pending
> jnz somewhere_away_to_handle_defered_interrupt
>
> And - of course - interrupt checks intr_lock in its entry and if it is
> zero, sets intr_pending and exits immediatelly.
And immediately gets called again. You have to mask the irq which is non trivial
esp
> I was referring to the infamous CLI/STI combinations that are more
> analogous to spinlocks than anything you are talking about. spl levels are
> clean and transparent and have been doing a very nice job in helping to
> avoid race conditions in real unix systems for quite some time now.
It
At 02:05 PM 04/18/2001, Matti Aarnio wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:08:22AM -0400, Dennis wrote:
> > Does 2.4 have something similar to spl levels or does it still require the
> > ridiculous MS-DOSish spin-locks to protect every bit of code?
>
> Lets see -- (besides of MSDOS not having any s
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 11:08:22AM -0400, Dennis wrote:
> Does 2.4 have something similar to spl levels or does it still require the
> ridiculous MS-DOSish spin-locks to protect every bit of code?
Lets see -- (besides of MSDOS not having any sort of spinlocks), the
spl() is something out of
e, we will contribute some trolls.
Deep humble apologies for troll migration
Michael
| -- Forwarded message --
| Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 11:08:22 -0400
| From: Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Subject: SMP in 2.4
|
| Does 2.4 have something similar to spl l
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Dennis wrote:
> Does 2.4 have something similar to spl levels or does it still require the
> ridiculous MS-DOSish spin-locks to protect every bit of code?
>
> DB
This must be a Troll. MS-DOS didn't have spin-locks and, when you
have multiple CPUs with one interrupt control
Dennis is like a pie in the face: messy, unexpected, but trivial.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Dennis wrote:
> Does 2.4 have something similar to spl levels or does it still require the
> ridiculous MS-DOSish spin-locks to protect every bit of code?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "un
Does 2.4 have something similar to spl levels or does it still require the
ridiculous MS-DOSish spin-locks to protect every bit of code?
DB
-
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
