Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Mar 2006 23:59:09 -0800 (PST) | From | Zwane Mwaikambo <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |