Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:21:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:20:51 -0400 Received: from [64.64.109.142] ([64.64.109.142]:53516 "EHLO quark.didntduck.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:20:42 -0400 Message-ID: <3B40BB72.64EE38C6@didntduck.org> Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 14:20:34 -0400 From: Brian Gerst X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Swami CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Doubt in interrupts In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Swami wrote: > > Hi, > > Are there any interrupts which doesn't affect local_irq_count(cpu) or that > doesn't enter do_IRQ()? (other than NMIs). > > Because I'm implementing my own locking routine and I'm getting > interrupted during spin, but I check and found that in_interupt() returns > zero. All hardware interrupts go through do_IRQ. There are also CPU exceptions and inter-processor interupts (SMP only) that have individual handlers. -- Brian Gerst - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/