Nick Garnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Joe Porthouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
>> Was there a reason why interrupt_end() should not be >> called on spurious interrupts? > > I guess it was an attempt to avoid doing more than the absolute > minimum on spurious interrupts. It looks like there is a bug in there, > since the scheduler lock doesn't get decremented. In general, spurious > interrupts shouldn't happen, which is why it has managed to lurk here > for so long. Well, I think the right question here is why scheduler lock is incremented at all? I mean if SMP implementations happen to increment it inside the interrupt_end(), then it should be safe for ARM HAL to increment it just before calling interrupt_end(), isn't it? This way spurious interrupt handling code will avoid both scheduler lock increment and interrupt_end() call. Makes sense? -- Sergei. -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
