From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <43E9AAB3.5020004@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 09:24:19 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [Combo-PATCH] Shared interrupts (final) References: <43E86F4D.4050400@domain.hid> <43E8DFC4.4010805@domain.hid> <43E99D2F.6040609@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <43E99D2F.6040609@domain.hid> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigE5E8337891BB951A7EDAC5CE" List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wolfgang Grandegger Cc: xenomai@xenomai.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigE5E8337891BB951A7EDAC5CE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Dmitry Adamushko wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> this is the final set of patches against the SVN trunk of 2006-02-03= =2E >>>> >>>> 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-se= t >>>> 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 ! :) >>> My concern is code size. I see that the patches add substantial amoun= t >>> of code to the ISR. What about make this feature configurable? >>> >> >> 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)" pat= h >> obsolete. >=20 > I still prefer configuration options as they also allow to reduce the > overall code size (less cache refills and TLB misses). And shared > interrupts are for x86 only (approximately), I think. Unfortunately, I Ok, that's a good argument. Then make the whole IRQ-sharing stuff compile-time configurable and see how much we can save. > don't have the time to follow all the details of the rapid Xenomai > development and can't therefore judge what is really necessary. >=20 > Wolfgang. >=20 Jan --------------enigE5E8337891BB951A7EDAC5CE 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 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD6aqzncNeS9Q0k+IRApz3AKClT07LeT+5/10ZBdbn3VgLUyyrtgCfejzO dhFeilmfS9gdkFET1StXDEw= =RICO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigE5E8337891BB951A7EDAC5CE--