linux-mips-fnet
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SA_INTERRUPT

To: <root@chaos.analogic.com>
Subject: Re: SA_INTERRUPT
From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <brad@ltc.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 14:09:48 -0400
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>, <linux-mips@fnet.fr>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.990928132620.17959A-100000@chaos.analogic.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard B. Johnson <root@chaos.analogic.com>
To: Bradley D. LaRonde <brad@ltc.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>; <linux-mips@fnet.fr>
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 1999 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: SA_INTERRUPT


> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Bradley D. LaRonde wrote:
>
> > What is the current wisdom on SA_INTERRUPT?
>
> It is unfortunate that the same #define is used for signals and
> for kernel interrupts. They are not related. As you noticed,i
> SA_INTERRUPT with respect to signals is a no-op since it doesn't change
> the nature of signals. However, with respect to IRQ handling within the
> kernel, it does enable interrupts before your possible bottom-half ISR
> is checked to see if it exists and executed.
> See line 726 (about) in ../arch/i386/kernel/irq.c

It looks like it enables interrupts even before the top-half handler is run.

Still, though, I would like to know when/why one should/shouldn't use this
flag.

Regards,
Brad

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • SA_INTERRUPT, Bradley D. LaRonde
    • Re: SA_INTERRUPT, Bradley D. LaRonde <=