lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: VMI Interface Proposal Documentation for I386, Part 5
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Zachary Amsden wrote:

> PROCESSOR STATE CALLS
>
> This set of calls controls the online status of the processor. It
> include interrupt control, reboot, halt, and shutdown functionality.
> Future expansions may include deep sleep and hotplug CPU capabilities.
>
> VMI_DisableInterrupts
>
> VMICALL void VMI_DisableInterrupts(void);
>
> Disable maskable interrupts on the processor.
>
> Inputs: None
> Outputs: None
> Clobbers: Flags only
> Segments: As this is both performance critical and likely to
> be called from low level interrupt code, this call does not
> require flat DS/ES segments, but uses the stack segment for
> data access. Therefore only CS/SS must be well defined.
>
> VMI_EnableInterrupts
>
> VMICALL void VMI_EnableInterrupts(void);
>
> Enable maskable interrupts on the processor. Note that the
> current implementation always will deliver any pending interrupts
> on a call which enables interrupts, for compatibility with kernel
> code which expects this behavior. Whether this should be required
> is open for debate.

Mind if i push this debate slightly forward? If we were to move the
dispatch of pending interrupts elsewhere, where would that be? In
particular, for a device which won't issue any more interrupts until it's
previous interrupt is serviced. Perhaps injection at arbitrary points
during runtime when interrupts are enabled?

Zwane

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-14 08:57    [W:0.078 / U:0.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site