Justus Winter, on Sun 28 Feb 2016 23:51:40 +0100, wrote: > Quoting Samuel Thibault (2016-02-28 22:35:14) > > Justus Winter, on Sun 28 Feb 2016 00:33:20 +0100, wrote: > > > 3/ ... instead the notification message carries a send right as the > > > reply port, and the userspace server acknowledges the interrupt by > > > deallocating this right. > > > > That makes much more sense to me than the current disable/enable. I > > guess that this will allow on the long run to have shared interrupts? > > I believe so, but I don't know how interrupt sharing works. I guess > all the drivers have to acknowledge the irq before it can be > reenabled?
Yes. > If so, then this interface will make it possible to implement this. That's what I felt, yes. > It is also safer in the sense that only the interrupt can be reenabled > that was disabled because of the notification. Yes. Samuel
