>> So calling rt_intr_enable from user space would not always do the same
>> as xnarch_end_irq from the kernel, wouldn't it ?
>>     
>
> No it would not, and this is what we want. The patch makes sure that calling
> rt_intr_enable/disable() will actually unmask/mask the interrupt at PIC level,
> regardless of how the normal ack/handle/end process works for that interrupt.
>
>   
OK, and this is the problem why I started calling for rt_intr_end. In 
order to use I_NOAUTOENA from user space correctly, I need to be able to 
end the interrupt correctly from user space. And there is no function to 
do this.

Tomas


>> Tomas
>>
>>
>>
>> Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>     
>>> Tomas Kalibera wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think that when I handle interrupts from user space, I cannot
>>>> correctly use I_NOAUTOENA. The thing is that this flag in fact means
>>>> "do not call automatically xnarch_end_irq". The xnarch_end_irq call
>>>> usually maps to unmasking the interrupt, but not always - depending
>>>> on interrupt type (sometimes in eoi, sometimes is nop).
>>>>
>>>> I was thinking that it would be nice if I could call something like
>>>> "xnarch_end_irq" (i.e. rt_intr_end) from user space, so that I could
>>>> correctly use I_NOAUTOENA to control the flow of interrupts.
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> What would this buy you? xnarch_irq_end() would still handle the
>>> unmasking logic
>>> depending on the interrupt type, because it knows how the interrupt was
>>> acknowledged in the first place -- in contrast, the application does
>>> not and
>>> should not.
>>>
>>> xnarch_end_irq() basically calls the ->unmask() method of the
>>> interrupt chip
>>> descriptor, which is the same as calling rt_intr_enable(). Before you
>>> do that,
>>> you may want to try the attached patch, which makes sure that
>>> rt_intr_enable/disable are eagerly routed to unmask/mask on x86 for
>>> post-2.6.18
>>> kernels. That patch is expected to solve the "rt_intr_disable() not
>>> masking
>>> IO-APIC interrupt" issue we discussed earlier.
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Tomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Xenomai-core mailing list
>>>> Xenomai-core@gna.org
>>>> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>   
>>>       
>>     
>
>
>   


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

Reply via email to