Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> this is the final set of patches against the SVN trunk of 2006-02-03.
>>>>
>>>> It addresses mostly remarks concerning naming (XN_ISR_ISA ->
>>>> XN_ISR_EDGE), a few cleanups and updated comments.
>>>>
>>>> Functionally, the support for shared interrupts (a few flags) to the
>>
>> Not directly your fault: the increasing number of return flags for IRQ
>> handlers makes me worry that they are used correctly. I can figure out
>> what they mean (not yet that clearly from the docs), but does someone
>> else understand all this:
>>
>> - RT_INTR_HANDLED
>> - RT_INTR_CHAINED
>> - RT_INTR_ENABLE
>> - RT_INTR_NOINT
>>
>> or
>>
>> - RTDM_IRQ_PROPAGATE
>> - RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE
>> - RTDM_IRQ_NOINT
>>
>> Third-party comments / suggestions welcome as well. Maybe I'm too
>> pessimistic.
>>
>>>> rtdm (Jan's patch) and native skin.
>>>> In the later case, rt_intr_create() now contains the 6-th argument,
>>>> namely "int mode".
>>>>
>>>> Now I'm waiting for the test results from Jan (the previous patch-set
>>>> remains to be suitable for testing too in case you are using it
>>>> already). Upon success, the new code is ready for merging.
>>
>> Trying to manage the priority list of someone else is tricky - I hope we
>> can see something soon, but I cannot promise anything.
>>
>>>> the patches have to be applied as follows :
>>>> - shirq-base
>>>> - shirq-v8
>>>> - shirq-proc
>>>> - shirq-edge
>>>> - shirq-ext
>>>>
>>>> Happy testing ! :)
>>> My concern is code size. I see that the patches add substantial amount
>>> of code to the ISR. What about make this feature configurable?
>>>
>>
>> I would vote for the (already scheduled?) extension to register an
>> optimised IRQ trampoline in case there is actually no sharing taking
>> place. This would also make the "if (irq == XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ)" path
>> obsolete.
> 
> I still prefer configuration options as they also allow to reduce the
> overall code size (less cache refills and TLB misses). And shared
> interrupts are for x86 only (approximately), I think. Unfortunately, I

Ok, that's a good argument. Then make the whole IRQ-sharing stuff
compile-time configurable and see how much we can save.

> don't have the time to follow all the details of the rapid Xenomai
> development and can't therefore judge what is really necessary.
> 
> Wolfgang.
> 

Jan


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to