From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263082AbUB0SPu (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:15:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263084AbUB0SPu (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:15:50 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]:36513 "EHLO zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263082AbUB0SPt (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:15:49 -0500 Message-ID: <403F894C.1050808@nortelnetworks.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:15:40 -0500 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Grover, Andrew" Cc: Helge Hafting , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why no interrupt priorities? References: 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 Grover, Andrew wrote: > If a device later in the handler chain is also interrupting, then the > interrupt will immediately trigger again. The irq line will remain > asserted until nobody is asserting it. I thought I saw examples of edge-triggered shared interrupts earlier in the thread. Doesn't that give the reason for this behaviour? Chris -- Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10 Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557 3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986 Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com