From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 22 19:18:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 28D0116A4E5; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:18:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: perforce@freebsd.org Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0448D16A4DA; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:18:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C806743D5A; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:18:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6MJI1ig033094; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:18:06 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <44C279E9.9060002@samsco.org> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 13:18:01 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paolo Pisati References: <200607221233.k6MCXjIL033391@repoman.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200607221233.k6MCXjIL033391@repoman.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: Perforce Change Reviews Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 102141 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:18:15 -0000 Paolo Pisati wrote: > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=102141 > > Change 102141 by piso@piso_longino on 2006/07/22 12:33:15 > > Use IF_FAST macro instead of directly checking flags, > and axe an INTR_FAST check in swi_add(): is it possible > for a software interrupt handler to have INTR_FAST defined? > did it make sense at all? > An swi is an ithread by definition, so INTR_FAST makes no sense to it. Scott