Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:26:28 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anyone know why the syscall interface is using the doreti mechanism? Message-ID: <200003260226.SAA26289@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200003251012.CAA19991@apollo.backplane.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003251654510.405-100000@alphplex.bde.org> <200003252038.NAA73468@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:In message <200003251012.CAA19991@apollo.backplane.com> Matthew Dillon writes:
:: It's getting clean enough that you can almost understand the interrupt
:: code :-)
:
:Cool. That's one part of the kernel that I've not quite fully
:understood. I always figured there was something I was missing about
:the code and why it needed to be as complex as it was...
:
:Warner
I think most of the complexity was due to all the conditional
assembly. A lot of things were tried during development and at
some point something 'stuck' and became a working base. Then all further
development seemed to add complexity to do endruns around problems
or inefficiencies with the base piece.
Conceptually it really isn't that big a deal. I'll document the
routines more in the next patch.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003260226.SAA26289>