Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:00:22 -0800 | | From | Pete Zaitcev <> | | Subject | Re: Why no interrupt priorities? |
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:05:07 -0800 Tim Bird <tim.bird@am.sony.com> wrote:
> What's the rationale for not supporting interrupt priorities > in the kernel?
Interrupts interrupt other interrupts today, so this aspect of nested interrupts is functional. In fact, it's a major headache, because with explosion of the number of interrupt sources in modern x86 servers were are pushed against the stack size.
The only thing remaining is something like UNIX spl(). You can overload enable_irq, disable_irq with enabling IRQs numbered lower than the IRQ being disabled, thus turning them into spl(). This is correct, but stupid.
Nobody writes drivers and arches like so, because if your _rely_ on such implementation of enable_irq and disable_irq, the driver or framwork becomes silently API dependant, and breaks silently.
If you want PILs like on sparc, well, your architecture can provide them. They make no sense on x86, of course, so they are called some arch-specific name, like __spl().
Why do you want "interrupt priorities", anyway? Is there a consumer electronics application which requires that? No, seriously, what is it?
-- Pete - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |