lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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
context?

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

Or do you have some other scheme in mind?

Regards,

Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site