On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 22:45 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote: > Gregory Haskins wrote: > > > > > I see your point, but I am fairly confident we can fix it more > > simply by > > going back to a synchronous model like the original > > try_to_push_interrupts used (it has to wait until irq.pending is > > clear, among other things like RFLAGS.IF=1 and MOV-SS + STI blocking > > = 0. > > Not exactly, this is insufficient because a new event (irq) may happen > after you check it in > user level such as a NMI for PMU may happen in Kernel after your check. >
Yes, and the problem is? The only issue as I see it is w.r.t. acking multiple interrupts on the 8259 without injecting them. This is independent of kernel sourced interrupts, and my proposal takes care of it. What am I missing? -Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
