Re: Interrupt Synchronization at PASSIVE_LEVEL
- From: shivaprasad <shivaprasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 02:34:02 -0700
"David Craig" wrote:
You must use an interrupt spinlock. Acquiring it will ensure you are at theIm not creating interrupt object for the interrupt.For sdio we will get only
correct IRQL. This also applies to regular spinlocks but avoid them, if
possible, by doing a good design.
"shivaprasad" <shivaprasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:793E07D6-DCA8-44B8-8C54-859FCA329731@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
Im working on Sdio2com driver development for WinXP.I have registered
callback routine for sdiointerrupt and CallbackAtDpcLevel is set to
false(i.e
PASSIVE_LEVEL).
Now i have some functions which will use some resource which is shared
with
the interrupt routine(callback routine).Question is how to synchronize
these
two.
For using spinlocks and mutexes the driver should be running above
APC_LEVEL.
Is there any method for synchronization???
interrupt callback routine.My driver is running in PASSIVE_LEVEL,so i cannot
use any of the spinlocks...
.
- References:
- Interrupt Synchronization at PASSIVE_LEVEL
- From: shivaprasad
- Re: Interrupt Synchronization at PASSIVE_LEVEL
- From: David Craig
- Interrupt Synchronization at PASSIVE_LEVEL
- Prev by Date: How to query a device's current power state
- Next by Date: Which USB hub port is a device connected to?
- Previous by thread: Re: Interrupt Synchronization at PASSIVE_LEVEL
- Next by thread: Re: Interrupt Synchronization at PASSIVE_LEVEL
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|