> Yes, I do have some remarks: due to legacy issues (I think to remember),
> we have a lot of unbalanced irq-enable/disable code out there. IRQs are
> currently enabled after registering a handler, but are not disabled on
> detach. That's because of problems with Linux when letting it take over
> a
Hi Jan,
I'll read up more carefully you proposalsa bit later, just want to
note now that the code I have posted (and actually the current shirq
code) have a few nasty (hidden maybe for a first glance) synch.
related bugs. brrr... although one will not encounter them when RTDM
is used for driver de
Hi Dmitry,
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yep, this is yet another draft patch which aims at supporting the
> nested irq disable/enable calls for the primary domain.
>
> o no changes on the adeos-ipipe layer, hence it's much cleaner and
> smaller that the one I have posted last time;
>
> o
Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
Hi,
yep, this is yet another draft patch which aims at supporting the
nested irq disable/enable calls for the primary domain.
o no changes on the adeos-ipipe layer, hence it's much cleaner and
smaller that the one I have posted last time;
o eliminates the need for XN_
