On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 9:06 AM Gregory Nutt <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/10/2024 7:59 AM, Nathan Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 8:11 AM spudaneco <spudan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> I wonder if we should also disable the prioritization APIs. In the > >> normal, default case, any reprioritization of an IRQ introduces a fatal, > >> mysterious bug. That is because nested interrupts will occur and may > not > >> be supported.Sent from my Galaxy > > > > Aren't the prioritization APIs needed for setting up the Zero Latency > > Interrupts? They exist "outside" the OS so they don't touch any OS > > structures, so no mysterious bug should occur. > > Yes, I tried to distinguish that case with some weasel words (normal, > default). Even if high priority interrupts are used (maybe enabled), > the same fatal error would occur if any other interrupts that share the > same handler were reprioritized True. With shared interrupt handlers, ALL the interrupts that share the same handler must have the same priority or else they might corrupt the shared data structures.
