Talk:Interrupt request

Lede

Overview paragraph here is not good. 12.219.83.157 10:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

x86 centric

This article is written almost completely about x86/x64 and its associated platforms. It might as well be called "x86 interrupt request". Interrupt architecture on other platforms should be described. Jeh (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I made an intro edit to remove the x86-specific matter. Someone else can do the rest of the work.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the introduction adequately apply to most processors, especially major ones such as Motorola 68000 and IBM 360 architectures too? Sam Tomato (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The first few sentences of the lede do apply, as they describe general concepts. However, since it was renamed on November 12, 2014‎, the article officially deals exclusively with the PC architecture. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Inadequate article

This article is seriously lacking in many ways. Also, note to would-be authors: x86 microprocessors aren't the only microprocessors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.69.12.6 (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with IRQL (Windows)

unsourced stub, better to merge into a software section of the hardware article for now Widefox; talk 10:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I can see how one might think this reasonable, given the current state of the IRQL article. But IRQL is a Windows internal software concept. Windows IRQLs exist on non-PC platforms (ARM, Itanium, and in the old days Alpha, PowerPC, and MIPS R4000); even on PCs, some of the IRQLs are not associated with "Interrupt requests" as described here; some of them are associated with purely software events and states. Yes, the IRQL article needs more information and detail, but that is no reason to merge it into a place where the material doesn't belong. Jeh (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

A software article would be better then. It may be older than NT kernel ?...a quick look...we have interrupt priority level and interrupt handler. Widefox; talk 20:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it could go in NT kernel. If you don't mind I will propose that merge, replacing this merge proposal in IRQL (Windows). Given NT's heritage (David Cutler having been one of the chief architects of VMS) it is definitely the case that Windows NT's IRQLs are the same sort of thing as VMS's IPL, but I don't think the two belong in the same article. If anything the Interrupt priority level (VMS) article should be merged into the VMS article. Jeh (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree we should change to a better target. interrupt priority level also mentions Linux, so seems natural to add Windows. There's hardware and software priority levels. I suggest merging to interrupt priority level to discuss at least all the software ones together as a topic. A quick check of sources seem to use the "interrupt priority" for both software and hardware, so that's a possible vendor neutral title if we want to move it. Widefox; talk 13:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree. An IRQL is actually hardware-independent, whereas an interrupt priority level is definitely hardware-dependent. Windows maps in asychronous procedure calls, threads and a few other things into their IRQL table. I'd suggest leaving it be... anyway, it was quite inaccurate so I've rewritten it from scratch. - Letsbefiends (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)