Messages in this thread | | | From | "Bradley D. LaRonde" <> | Subject | Re: SA_INTERRUPT | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:09:48 -0400 |
| |
----- Original Message ----- From: Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com> To: Bradley D. LaRonde <brad@ltc.com> Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>; <linux-mips@fnet.fr> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 1:33 PM Subject: Re: SA_INTERRUPT
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote: > > > What is the current wisdom on SA_INTERRUPT? > > It is unfortunate that the same #define is used for signals and > for kernel interrupts. They are not related. As you noticed,i > SA_INTERRUPT with respect to signals is a no-op since it doesn't change > the nature of signals. However, with respect to IRQ handling within the > kernel, it does enable interrupts before your possible bottom-half ISR > is checked to see if it exists and executed. > See line 726 (about) in ../arch/i386/kernel/irq.c
It looks like it enables interrupts even before the top-half handler is run.
Still, though, I would like to know when/why one should/shouldn't use this flag.
Regards, Brad
- 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/
| |