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    [W:0.017 / U:122.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site