Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:31:42 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: PATCH 2.4.0.10.3: pc_keyb and q40_keyb cleanup |
| |
Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Timer, bottomhalves (softirq) and tasklets (and softnet) are always > recalled with irq enabled. So if it would be called by timer/tasklet/bhhandler > it should use irq version of the spinlocks too if it needs to run with irq > locally disabled. > > One thing you could safely change in keyboard_interrupt is to remove the save > part of the spinlock by using spin_lock_irq (we don't need to save anything > since keyboard_interrupt is only recalled as an irq handler).
I understand SA_INTERRUPT, my question in the previous e-mail was more basic: keyboard_interrupt calls handle_kbd_event with local interrupts disabled. Why are local interrupts disabled?
-- Jeff Garzik | The difference between laziness and Building 1024 | prioritization is the end result. MandrakeSoft | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |