Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!botter!star.cs.vu.nl!ast
From: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Help! Minix 1.3 & PS/2 Model 80
Message-ID: <1988@ast.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 31 Jan 89 14:17:55 GMT
References: <1975@ast.cs.vu.nl> <1701@ditsyda.oz>
Reply-To: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 13

In article <1701@ditsyda.oz> evans@ditsyda.oz (Bruce Evans) writes:
>There is an amazingly simple answer. Do nothing.
I am not sure I follow.  Suppose we just remove the sending of the EOI
from interrupt().  Does this block all subsequent interrupts?  Just those
on the same interrupt line?  I thought that Steve Ackerman did his mask
fiddling because if he didn't, he got another interrupt immediately upon
exiting the interrupt handler?  Steve-- correct me if I am wrong.

>Of course an EOI must still be done in the high level task. It must now be
>a specific EOI:
Why does it have to be specific now?

Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)