Oops, I though IRQ_DISABLED was the opposite of IRQF_SHARED. Sorry. Consider the question not asked :P
On 17 February 2014 12:06, Jay Aurabind <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I've been going through Robert Love's LKD. Here is an excerpt from it > regarding registration of interrupt handlers: > > "When request_irq() is called with IRQF_SHARED specified, the call > succeeds only if the interrupt line is currently not registered, or if all > registered handlers on the line also specified IRQF_SHARED. Shared > handlers, however, can mix usage of IRQF_DISABLED." > > As far as I understand, the first sentence tells that a line currently > having shared handlers *will only have* handlers registered with > IRQF_SHARED flag in the past. Correct ? > > If a interrupt line has been registered by a handler specified as non > shared, then whats the point in allowing a new handler with a "shared" flag > registering to the same line ? So how does the mixing of shared and > unshared interrupt handlers for the same line go together as mentioned by > the 2nd sentence ? > > Or does it mean that a shared handler which already succeeded the > registration can further register a non shared and shared interrupt > handlers? ( That doesnt make sense, but still... ) ? Simply put, can > someone please elaborate on the second sentence I quoted from the book ? > > > Thanks and Regards, > Aurabindo J > -- Thanks and Regards, *Aurabindo J*
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
