Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 08:56:10 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: "Perforce Change Reviews" <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 98153 for review Message-ID: <200606020856.11054.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <b1fa29170606011726r78303d84y3d0116cff2174009@mail.gmail.com> References: <200605301926.k4UJQkgt055284@repoman.freebsd.org> <200605311657.44921.jhb@freebsd.org> <b1fa29170606011726r78303d84y3d0116cff2174009@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 02 June 2006 02:26, Kip Macy wrote: > > I'd rather avoid this for now as it will have to be backed out for > > interrupt filters. > > I don't know anything about interrupt filters, so please let me know > what you have in mind. The whole of interrupt handling is far too > heavyweight at the moment. > As long as your code is not Giant locked, the standard interrupt handlers should not be that slow? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606020856.11054.hselasky>