Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 19:29:10 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: dg@Root.COM, smp@csn.net Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org, smp@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: ed0 timeouts Message-ID: <199611030829.TAA24597@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Is it possible for a new INT to be asserted by the if_ed driver WHILE >it is currently being serviced by the edintr() routine? Probably. It is certainly possibly for other ISA devices. The IRQ tends to go low when you read the status register and then there can be another edge when another event occurs. >What I have discovered is that unlike the 8259, the IO APIC will ignore >(ie NOT delivered or held pending) an edge level INT if it currently is >masked. The routine in vector.s masks the INT, calls edintr(), then after >edintr() returns it unmasks the INT. If another INT fired as a result >of ed_start() being called in edintr() BEFORE the INT was unmasked it >would be LOST. It seems to be more braindamaged than an 8259 :-(. (The main 8259 braindamage is that you can't see the state of the IRQ lines directly except while interrupts are masked and not in service.) Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611030829.TAA24597>