Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: powerpc/pic/intr.c IPL_HIGH vs IPL_NONE

To: Frank Wille <frank%phoenix.owl.de@localhost>
Subject: Re: powerpc/pic/intr.c IPL_HIGH vs IPL_NONE
From: Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 15:06:52 -0700

On Oct 3, 2012, at 10:24 AM, Frank Wille wrote:

> This is not a good idea. It would mean that all i8259 interrupts would be
> handled at IPL_HIGH.

Not true.  They will get deferred until IPL drops.

References:
- Re: powerpc/pic/intr.c IPL_HIGH vs IPL_NONE
  - From: KIYOHARA Takashi
- Re: powerpc/pic/intr.c IPL_HIGH vs IPL_NONE
  - From: Frank Wille

Prev by Date: Re: kernel panic, problems getting backtrace from saved core
Next by Date: daily CVS update output
Previous by Thread: Re: powerpc/pic/intr.c IPL_HIGH vs IPL_NONE
Next by Thread: Re: powerpc/pic/intr.c IPL_HIGH vs IPL_NONE
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index