Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 01.02.2011 21:10, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>
>> On 01.02.2011, at 20:58, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:35:01PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
edge
When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
edge triggered one: leaving the line up does not retrigger the interrupt.
In fact, when not lowering the line, we won't ever get a new interrupt inside
the guest. So let's always retrigger an interrupt as soon as the OS ack
Am 01.02.2011 21:10, schrieb Alexander Graf:
>
> On 01.02.2011, at 20:58, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:35:01PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
>>> edge triggered one: leaving the line up does not
On 01.02.2011, at 20:58, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:35:01PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
>> edge triggered one: leaving the line up does not retrigger the interrupt.
>>
>> In fact, when not lowe
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 07:35:01PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
> edge triggered one: leaving the line up does not retrigger the interrupt.
>
> In fact, when not lowering the line, we won't ever get a new interrupt inside
When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
edge triggered one: leaving the line up does not retrigger the interrupt.
In fact, when not lowering the line, we won't ever get a new interrupt inside
the guest. So let's always retrigger an interrupt as soon as the OS ack
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 06:10:56PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 01.02.2011, at 18:06, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 05:53:43PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01.02.2011, at 17:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:51:32PM +0100,
On 01.02.2011, at 17:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:51:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
>> edge triggered one: leaving the line up does not retrigger the interrupt.
>>
>> In fact, when not lowe
On 01.02.2011, at 18:06, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 05:53:43PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>> On 01.02.2011, at 17:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:51:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is t
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 05:53:43PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 01.02.2011, at 17:34, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:51:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
> >> edge triggered one: leaving
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:51:32PM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
> edge triggered one: leaving the line up does not retrigger the interrupt.
>
> In fact, when not lowering the line, we won't ever get a new interrupt inside
When using level based interrupts, the interrupt is treated the same as an
edge triggered one: leaving the line up does not retrigger the interrupt.
In fact, when not lowering the line, we won't ever get a new interrupt inside
the guest. So let's always retrigger an interrupt as soon as the OS ack
12 matches
Mail list logo