From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262922AbUBZS43 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:56:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262885AbUBZS43 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:56:29 -0500 Received: from mail8.fw-bc.sony.com ([160.33.98.75]:39303 "EHLO mail8.fw-bc.sony.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262922AbUBZS4Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:56:24 -0500 Message-ID: <403E4363.2070908@am.sony.com> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:05:07 -0800 From: Tim Bird User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux kernel Subject: Why no interrupt priorities? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org What's the rationale for not supporting interrupt priorities in the kernel? We're having a discussion of this in one of our CELF working groups, and it would help if someone could explain why an interrupt priority system has never been adopted in the mainstream Linux kernel. (I know that some implementations have been written and proposed). Is there a strong policy against such a thing, or is it just that the right implementation has not come along? Thanks, ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Co-Chair CE Linux Forum Senior Staff Engineer Sony Electronics E-mail: Tim.Bird@am.sony.com =============================