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
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
