Hi,
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > When that is done, please don't call __sti() directly and use some macro
> > that can be overridden by the architectures.
>
> What do you have in mind while making this suggestion? The irq highlevel layer
> is pretty much architectural
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 09:45:36PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> When that is done, please don't call __sti() directly and use some macro
> that can be overridden by the architectures.
What do you have in mind while making this suggestion? The irq highlevel layer
is pretty much architectural
Hi,
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Comments?
When that is done, please don't call __sti() directly and use some macro
that can be overridden by the architectures.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Hi,
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Comments?
When that is done, please don't call __sti() directly and use some macro
that can be overridden by the architectures.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 09:45:36PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
When that is done, please don't call __sti() directly and use some macro
that can be overridden by the architectures.
What do you have in mind while making this suggestion? The irq highlevel layer
is pretty much architectural
Hi,
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
When that is done, please don't call __sti() directly and use some macro
that can be overridden by the architectures.
What do you have in mind while making this suggestion? The irq highlevel layer
is pretty much architectural indipendent.
On Sun, Oct 01 2000, Torben Mathiasen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30 2000, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > Don Becker has some text at:
> >
> > http://www.scyld.com/expert/irq-conflict.html
> >
> > which includes a section:
> >
> > > Why SA_INTERRUPT in the SCS
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:50:21PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> Don Becker has some text at:
>
> http://www.scyld.com/expert/irq-conflict.html
>
> which includes a section:
>
> > Why SA_INTERRUPT in the SCSI drivers is a Bad Thing
>
> > ... it could potent
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 09:50:21PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
Don Becker has some text at:
http://www.scyld.com/expert/irq-conflict.html
which includes a section:
Why SA_INTERRUPT in the SCSI drivers is a Bad Thing
... it could potentially have a very negative impact on all other
On Sun, Oct 01 2000, Torben Mathiasen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 30 2000, Sandy Harris wrote:
Don Becker has some text at:
http://www.scyld.com/expert/irq-conflict.html
which includes a section:
Why SA_INTERRUPT in the SCSI drivers is a Bad Thing
... it could potentially have
Don Becker has some text at:
http://www.scyld.com/expert/irq-conflict.html
which includes a section:
> Why SA_INTERRUPT in the SCSI drivers is a Bad Thing
> ... it could potentially have a very negative impact on all other interrupt-driven
> kernel service. That includes just about e
Don Becker has some text at:
http://www.scyld.com/expert/irq-conflict.html
which includes a section:
Why SA_INTERRUPT in the SCSI drivers is a Bad Thing
... it could potentially have a very negative impact on all other interrupt-driven
kernel service. That includes just about everything
12 matches
Mail list logo
