From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Mar 17 19:17:48 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA26936 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:17:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from po2.glue.umd.edu (root@po2.glue.umd.edu [129.2.128.45]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA26927 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:17:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from packet.eng.umd.edu (packet.eng.umd.edu [129.2.98.184]) by po2.glue.umd.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id WAA01073 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:17:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost) by packet.eng.umd.edu (8.8.5/8.6.4) with SMTP id WAA03589 for ; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:17:40 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: packet.eng.umd.edu: chuckr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:17:40 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey X-Sender: chuckr@packet.eng.umd.edu To: FreeBSD-Hackers Subject: Intel inteerrupts? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Does anyone know (for certain) what the action is regarding the interrupt enable flag, when a software INT is invoked for the Intel architecture? Are interrupts disabled, enabled, or what? If you have an answer, and IF you know somewhere I can read to verify it, I'd really appreciate your posting it. I've had several folks give me their (conflicting) opinions, and now I'm looking for confirmation. This is in regards to something I'm doing for an operating systems class. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------