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.

Jan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to