[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: user-level drivers

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: user-level drivers
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 03:22:06 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30)

olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net, le Tue 24 May 2011 12:09:08 +0200, a écrit :
> > What about using the I/O port scheme?  That is, decide_intr_notify
> > doesn't enable IRQ notifications, but instead just returns a handle
> > (compare i386_io_perm_create) that is then passed to device_irq_enable
> > to enable/disable IRQ notifications (compare i386_io_perm_modify).
> > Does that make sense in this IRQ scenario?
> I'm tempted to cry "don't overengineer" again... Though I must admit
> that -- unlike for I/O ports (where it's totally pointless IMHO) -- this
> would actually make sense here: the IRQ enabling is a pretty
> time-critical operation (happening on every interrupt received); so it
> would be good if a bus manager is able to hand out an enable port to
> unprivileged driver processes.

I'm having a look at this thread again, and wondering (once more, I have
to say I don't know so much about the Mach IPC): couldn't the irq
enabling simply done by an answer to the notify? Or are notifies never
replied to?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]