interrupt

Based on various references, my subjective definition of signals in Linux is "The triggers that are used to notify the processes about an occurrence of a specific event.Event here may refer to a software exception.Additionally signals may also be used for IPC mechanisms." The questions I have are I presume only exceptions (software interrupts) are notified via signals.What about the case of hardware interrupts. What are the various sources of the signal? To me it looks like kernel is always the source of a signal.(except when used for IPC) Difference between the signal handler and the ISR?.

Is there any way to disable all irq from Cortex M3 MCU except one ? My issue is that I have a system running several kinds of irq with various priority levels and I want to disable all irq except one in a particular state. I know I can disable all irq by using "__disable_irq()" instruction but I can't enable one irq after calling this instruction if I didn't call "__enable_irq()" before. Thanks for your help, Regards Use the BASEPRI register to disable all interrupts below the specified priority level. This is a core register, described in the Cortex-M3 Programming Manual . CMSIS provides the

I just lost days, literally, ~25 hrs of work, due to trying to debug my code over something simple that I didn't know. It turns out decrementing an element of a single-byte array in C++, on an AVR ATmega328 8-bit microcontroller (Arduino) is not an atomic operation, and requires atomic access guards (namely, turning off interrupts). Why is this??? Also, what are all of the C techniques to ensure atomic access to variables on an Atmel AVR microcontroller? Here's a dumbed down version of what I did: //global vars: const uint8_t NUM_INPUT_PORTS = 3; volatile uint8_t numElementsInBuf[NUM_INPUT

The code that I have creates a Callable instance and using ExecutorService a new thread is being created. I want to kill this thread after certain amount of time if the thread is not done with its execution. After going through the jdk documentation I've realized that Future.cancel() method can be used to stop the execution of the thread, but to my dismay its not working. Of course future.get() method is sending an interrupt to the Thread after the stipulated time (in my case its 2 seconds) and even the thread is receiving this interrupt but this interruption is taking place only once the

I'm considering to use C++0x threads in my application instead of Boost threads. However, I'm not sure how to reimplement what I have with standard C++0x threads since they don't seem to have an interrupt() method. My current setup is: a master thread that manages work; several worker threads that carry out master's commands. Workers call wait() on at least two different condition variables. Master has a "timed out" state: in this case it tells all workers to stop and give whatever result they got by then. With Boost threads master just uses interrupt_all() on a thread group, which causes

If I have a function with a try/finally section, and the thread running it is interrupted while in the try block, will the finally block execute before the interruption actually occurs? According to the Java Tutorials , "if the thread executing the try or catch code is interrupted or killed, the finally block may not execute even though the application as a whole continues." Here's the full passage: The finally block always executes when the try block exits. This ensures that the finally block is executed even if an unexpected exception occurs. But finally is useful for more than just