On 07/02/06, Wolfgang Grandegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, I though about making the new stuff optionally configurable.
But another option would be to leave the xnintr_irq_handler() as it was before and to introduce a separate handler for the shared interrupts. edge-triggeres interrupts already have the distinct handler (xnintr_edgeirq_handler()).
I guess the additional code in xnintr_attach/detach() and a few
(~1 for UP and ~2 for SMP) KBs of data are not that critical taking
into account where and how they are used, both latency and cache-wise.
Hello,
> [skip-skip-skip]
> Happy testing ! :)
My concern is code size. I see that the patches add substantial amount
of code to the ISR. What about make this feature configurable?
Yes, I though about making the new stuff optionally configurable.
But another option would be to leave the xnintr_irq_handler() as it was before and to introduce a separate handler for the shared interrupts. edge-triggeres interrupts already have the distinct handler (xnintr_edgeirq_handler()).
Wolfgang.
> --
> Best regards,
> Dmitry Adamushko
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xenomai-core mailing list
> Xenomai-core@gna.org
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
--
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
_______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list Xenomai-core@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
