[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PATCH pc_keyb and q40_keyb cleanup
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 05:43:34PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Which shouldn't matter as the irq source should be disabled. In fact I
> thought we were guaranteed not to be re-interrupted in a handler
> unless one explicitly does __sti(), has this changed?

A single irq handler won't be re-interrupted, correct. Not even if you do

(in the edge triggered IO-APIC case, the irq source is not disabled to avoid
missing events but the highlevel irq logic makes sure that the irq _handler_
won't be run if it was just in-progress somewhere in the system, even
if in another CPU)

But the fact the irq handler is single threaded with respect to itself is
irrelevant with the keyboard_interrupt case because that irq handler will be
recalled by _two_ indipendent irq lines (irq 2 for the keyboard and irq 12 for
the PS/2 Mouse).

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.111 / U:1.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site