On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 07:23:16AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > I guess I should add that I'm not certain that the code is exactly correct > there are weird differences between enable/disable and mask.
My understanding was "enable" would clear (or ignore) pending interrupts and "unmask" would deliver pending interrupts. Disable and mask could in many implementations be the same thing as long as the enable/unmask difference was supported. thanks, grnat > Where generally > the mask/unmask methods do the work and enable/disable do some weird software > thing. Having them different and enable/disable not doing some software > thing concerns me a little. I think mask/unmask may been overoptimized > in this case. > > So I expect someone will wind up refactor this code at some point. > > However the code is clearly better than what we have now, and it can't > affect anything else. > > Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
