From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Sep 18 21:57:06 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA10140
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usr05.primenet.com (tlambert@usr05.primenet.com [206.165.6.205])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA10132
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA09610;
	Thu, 18 Sep 1997 21:56:37 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <199709190456.VAA09610@usr05.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: INB question
To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:56:36 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: grog@lemis.com, mike@smith.net.au, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de,
        hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199709190206.LAA03892@word.smith.net.au> from "Mike Smith" at Sep 19, 97 11:36:03 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> That's still not good enough.  The reality is "0xff under all except 
> certain specific circumstances".  "Tendency" and "likelihood" both 
> imply indeterminacy which is not present in this case.

And I use the same Delay techniques FreeBSD uses to avoid those
particular cases (back-to-back reads, read-before-latch).  So
I have the information I needed.  Thanks to all concerned.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.