Re: help about handling interrupts

[matthew_heaney@acm.org (Matthew Heaney)]

In article <dewar.891959182@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:

>Matthew says
>
><<>User processes cannot directly handle interrupts under Linux.
>>If you want to write an interrupt handler yourself, you have to
>>do this in a loadable kernel module. You can write loadable kernel
>>modules in Ada just like you can do this in C. You have to call a
>>kernel function at module load time that registers your Ada
>>procedure as an interrupt handler, and then the Linux kernel
>>will call your Ada procedure whenever this interrupt comes in.
>
>I don't understand this response.
>
>In Ada 95, you attach protected procedure of a protected object to an
>interrupt.  Section 19.6, INTERRUPT HANDLING, in Norm Cohen's book is
>dedicated to this very topic.
>
>No, the OS doesn't make any difference.  The syntax for specifying an
>>>
>
>
>
>And I don't understand Matthew's response. If you take the attitude that
>an interrupt in the RM really means an interrupt (as opposed to some kind
>of operating system signal), then it is perfectly legitimate to reject all
>attempts at attaching interrupt handlers on a system which does not allow
>you to define an interrupt routine in the environment in which you are trying
>to compile (e.g. user mode on NT or Unix).

I think there's a terminology problem.  When the original poster said
"attach an interrupt," I interpreted him to mean "attach a procedure to a
UNIX signal."  I suppose if you're writing a device driver, and you need an
"interrupt service routine (ISR)," then I don't think you can use a
protected object.  But if you mean "UNIX signal," then you can (at least I
hope you can!).