Re: [Oslib-devel] Re: ABORT 64 and time

[Luca A. <luc...@em...>]

On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 16:30, Paolo Gai wrote:
> > Is it ok if I remove the cli()/sti() from irq_bind() (it is the only
> > oslib function that protects itself with cli/sti)? In this way, the
> > responsibility for locking/unlocking is left to the kernel (right now,
> > this seems to me the correct thing to do...).
> > 
> > Also, this would answer the "open question" in oq.txt (I forgot about it
> > ;-).
> 
> >From my point of view, it should be that OSLib functions are not
> protected with cli/sti.
Ok, I am going to remove cli()/sti() from irq_bind()...


> That is, it is responsability of the upper layer (the kernel) to disable
> the interrupts when needed.
> 
> That is at least what I always thought when I implemented the shark
> kernel layer...
Well, it was an open question... Time to close it :-)

			Luca
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Copy this in your signature, if you think it is important:
                               N O    W A R ! ! !



--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f

Sponsor:
Al Garden Center Peraga fioriscono nuove iniziative: ecco i Tour Day Peraga, per andare alla scoperta del Canavese! INFO 0125 665500
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=1613&d=12-9