On 29/02/2024 13:02, Ni, Ray wrote:
A ideal solution is to not keep the interrupt disabled when
RestoreTPL(TPL_HIGH -> not TPL_HIGH) is executed in the timer interrupt
context because the interrupt handler will re-enable the interrupt with
arch specific instructions (e.g.: IRET for x86).
The patch introduces mInterruptedTplMask which tells RestoreTPL() if
it's called in the interrupt context and whether it should defer enabling
the interrupt.
NACK. This breaks the specification-defined behaviour for RestoreTPL().
What guarantees do we have that there is no code anywhere in the world
that relies upon RestoreTPL() unconditionally re-enabling interrupts.
I also find this code substantially harder to follow than
NestedInterruptTplLib (which does not break any specified behaviour).
Thanks,
Michael
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#116168): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/116168
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/104642317/21656
Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
