On Monday 16 April 2001  8:56 pm, Ben Harris wrote:
> In article <01041619422001.00346@pinky.paradox.demon.co.uk> you write:
> >While I'm in this area the stray interrupt code is broken, currently it
> >returns, without pulling the frame off the stack etc, I'm thinking maybe
> > it should panic, but I'm not sure about doing a panic when handling
> > interrupts. Perhaps it should be tidied up so that it can return, and we
> > attempt to handle any more interrupts?
>
> Given the behaviour of a certain one of my podules (it flags an interrupt
> for 5us or so, then thinks better of it and denies all knowledge), I'd
> prefer it to log a warning and return (like the arm26 one does).

I'll work on that once I've submitted the code as is.  (I believe that 
handling it is a seperate issu (or I'd rather it goes in seperately))

> Oh, and you can certainly panic in an interrupt handler.  panic() is
> designed to work from anywhere.  log() is similarly useful.

Excellent :)

> Now, maybe I should take a look at the patch...

Chuckle.

Based on the comments received I'm going to submit the patch (with a couple 
of differences, one being a comment change the other being another tweak from 
richard)

Cheers,
Chris