lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Lockups - lost interrupt

On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu wrote:

> There are parts of the new irq.c that are not obviously there to support
> RTLinux. Please don't chop em. Especially important is: the functions
> in the low level handler structure do not invoke any spinlocks and
> there are labels on the low level irq catch code that allow the RTL
> module to patch to take control.

i'm not touching the architecture part, thats i think pretty clean right
now. I ment minor stuff like moving the no_irq controller definition out
of i8259.c and the like. (no_irq_type is not really Intel-dependent. The
#if SMP thing in ack_none is just an expression of 'what should we do if
the vector is illegal', which is architecture dependent. But this doesnt
make the no_irq_type controller truly architecture-dependent.) Another
more generic thing i'm thinking about (not done yet), to move the vector
building defines near to every controller's source code section. This
makes the thing a little bit more modular. Not all controllers are truly
independent (there are obvious interactions between 8259A and the first
IOAPIC in the system), but this is not a problem. The APIC/IOAPIC code
OTOH has major modifications/fixes.

what labels do you mean?

-- mingo


-
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 13:53    [W:0.066 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site