From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030303AbVHKNmI (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:42:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030304AbVHKNmI (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:42:08 -0400 Received: from mail-in-04.arcor-online.net ([151.189.21.44]:61374 "EHLO mail-in-04.arcor-online.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030303AbVHKNmH (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:42:07 -0400 From: Bodo Eggert Subject: Re: Need help in understanding x86 syscall To: Ukil a , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: 7eggert@gmx.de Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:41:57 +0200 References: <4Ae73-6Mm-5@gated-at.bofh.it> User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit Message-Id: X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for information X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-From: harvested.in.lkml@posting.7eggert.dyndns.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ukil a wrote: > Now I had the doubt that if the the syscall > implementation is very large will the scheduling and > other interrupts be blocked for the whole time till > the process returns from the ISR (because in an ISR by > default the interrupts are disabled unless “sti” is > called explicitly)? According to my documentation it isn't. A software interrupt is a far call with an extra pushf, and a hardware interrupt is protected against recursion by the PIC, not by an interrupt flag. -- Ich danke GMX dafür, die Verwendung meiner Adressen mittels per SPF verbreiteten Lügen zu sabotieren.