Re: [PATCH 1/3] Separate IRQ-stacks from 4K-stacks option

[Lee Revell]

On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 16:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Okay, I'll be the one to ask... what overload of the IPL acronym are
> > you using here? I asked google and several jargon files, and they all
> > say that IPL (initial program load) is IBMspeak for cold boot. Somehow
> > I don't think that's what you mean here.
> 
> i understood it as Interrupt Privilege Levels. The notion of having some
> sort of scalar 'limit' - all interrupts with a higher priority than that
> will execute, all interrupts with lower priority will block.  This is a
> fundamentally dodgy concept because in reality interrupt sources are
> independent entities so the natural description for of them is a bitmask
> (or an array, or whatever), not a level.
> 

Yeah, I was talking about interrupt priority levels.  I have to admit my
only exposure to them is a book on Solaris, they are intended as a
mechanism to deal with priority inversions.  Sounds like a neat trick on
paper but they don't seem to be applicable here.

Lee

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/