[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PS/2 mouse latency was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [DATAPOINT] kernels and latencies
Alan Cox writes:
> > > The PS/2 hardware requires delays, but it does not require that
> > > interrupts are off for the entire period to my knowledge.
> >
> > OK, but there's still the locking. We can't just have the interrupt
> > handler frob the controller while elsewhere we're poking it, can we?
> Indeed we cannot. We need to do locking but we need to do it a
> different way.

Which leads to my other question: can we "ignore" the interrupt
(i.e. just update a flag somewhere) for later processing in a process

Or can we block the interrupt? And hope no-one else is sharing it...

Or do you have some other scheme in mind?



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.065 / U:8.956 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site