Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 11:27:29 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: julian@whistle.com (Julian Elischer), bde@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bruce! HHHEEELLLLPPPP! Message-ID: <199701241827.LAA07643@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199701241659.JAA27323@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <32E8BEFD.167EB0E7@whistle.com> <199701241659.JAA27323@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ It's not obvious if the driver in questions registers/unregisters an IRQ. ] > > Bruce.. I spent quite a few hours trying to understand > > the interrupt masking system and failed.. If you want Julian, I *think* I have a pretty good understanding of the interrupt masking system (including a lot of 'mis-features' w/regards to IRQ unloading/unregistering. I have broken code which works better, but doesn't take into account things like the net/tty/clock masks, so it ends up locking up my system if I load/unload PCCARD drivers from my system after a while. > I think it's a case of unregistration being required, not masking; Yep, and unregisteration doens't occur. > Bruce can correct me, but I think a masked interrupt which occurs > while masked is delivered at unmask time. This is a scary thought, > since it bears on the question "how do I disable an interrupt > without potentially causing it to occur following unregistration?". If you disable the interrupt and remove it's IRQ handler, then you'll get a 'stray interrupt' at unmask time, which is 'handled' sort of. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701241827.LAA07643>