From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43E8DFC4.4010805@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 18:58:28 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [Combo-PATCH] Shared interrupts (final) References: <43E86F4D.4050400@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <43E86F4D.4050400@domain.hid> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigDAD6EB8073F2227ED6F9BAE7" List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Grandegger , Dmitry Adamushko Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigDAD6EB8073F2227ED6F9BAE7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Hello, >=20 > Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> this is the final set of patches against the SVN trunk of 2006-02-03. >> >> It addresses mostly remarks concerning naming (XN_ISR_ISA -> >> XN_ISR_EDGE), a few cleanups and updated comments. >> >> Functionally, the support for shared interrupts (a few flags) to the Not directly your fault: the increasing number of return flags for IRQ handlers makes me worry that they are used correctly. I can figure out what they mean (not yet that clearly from the docs), but does someone else understand all this: - RT_INTR_HANDLED - RT_INTR_CHAINED - RT_INTR_ENABLE - RT_INTR_NOINT or - RTDM_IRQ_PROPAGATE - RTDM_IRQ_ENABLE - RTDM_IRQ_NOINT Third-party comments / suggestions welcome as well. Maybe I'm too pessimistic. >> rtdm (Jan's patch) and native skin. >> In the later case, rt_intr_create() now contains the 6-th argument, >> namely "int mode". >> >> Now I'm waiting for the test results from Jan (the previous patch-set >> remains to be suitable for testing too in case you are using it >> already). Upon success, the new code is ready for merging. Trying to manage the priority list of someone else is tricky - I hope we can see something soon, but I cannot promise anything. >> >> the patches have to be applied as follows : >> - shirq-base >> - shirq-v8 >> - shirq-proc >> - shirq-edge >> - shirq-ext >> >> Happy testing ! :) >=20 > My concern is code size. I see that the patches add substantial amount > of code to the ISR. What about make this feature configurable? >=20 I would vote for the (already scheduled?) extension to register an optimised IRQ trampoline in case there is actually no sharing taking place. This would also make the "if (irq =3D=3D XNARCH_TIMER_IRQ)" path obsolete. Jan --------------enigDAD6EB8073F2227ED6F9BAE7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD6N/EncNeS9Q0k+IRAlSaAKCNljFs77Qh/93rXBwIOPxmrsPY2gCeJpJ5 Ib1PmWZsHaUebyz+6UWNY0s= =l2yx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigDAD6EB8073F2227ED6F9BAE7--