On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 06:23:14PM +0200, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:52:14 +0000 (UTC)
> Fr__d__ric Bri__re <fbriere@fbriere.net> wrote:
> 
> > Gary Jennejohn <gary.jennejohn@freenet.de> wrote:
> > > Worse is that there is a potential infinite loop with all interrupts
> > > blocked in cbm_raw_write().
> > 
> > Do you mean the one that was fixed in 0.4.3rc1?
> > 
> > <http://opencbm.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/opencbm/cbm4win/sys/linux/cbm_module.c?r1=1.13.2.18&r2=1.13.2.19>
> > 
> > That was a sticking point for me too.  :)
> > 
> > (The loop was subsequently upped to 1ms, but it's still better than
> > infinite.)
> > 
> 
> Yes.  I downloaded the ZIP archive which is obviously out of date.
> 
> As to blocking individual interrupts - it would still be generally useful IMO,
> even if it wouldn't benefit you.

Who would it benifit?  Seriously, I can't think of a situation that you
really want to do that, all of the work in this area of the kernel for
the past few years is to prevent this from happening (moving interrupt
handlers into threads for example), to make the overall system faster
and more "level".

thanks,

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Kernel-mentors mailing list
Kernel-mentors@selenic.com
http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-mentors