Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:42:20 +0200 (CEST) | From | <> | Subject | Re: Lockups - lost interrupt |
| |
On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu wrote:
> There are parts of the new irq.c that are not obviously there to support > RTLinux. Please don't chop em. Especially important is: the functions > in the low level handler structure do not invoke any spinlocks and > there are labels on the low level irq catch code that allow the RTL > module to patch to take control.
i'm not touching the architecture part, thats i think pretty clean right now. I ment minor stuff like moving the no_irq controller definition out of i8259.c and the like. (no_irq_type is not really Intel-dependent. The #if SMP thing in ack_none is just an expression of 'what should we do if the vector is illegal', which is architecture dependent. But this doesnt make the no_irq_type controller truly architecture-dependent.) Another more generic thing i'm thinking about (not done yet), to move the vector building defines near to every controller's source code section. This makes the thing a little bit more modular. Not all controllers are truly independent (there are obvious interactions between 8259A and the first IOAPIC in the system), but this is not a problem. The APIC/IOAPIC code OTOH has major modifications/fixes.
what labels do you mean?
-- mingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |