From owner-freebsd-current Sat Mar 25 18:26:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FCF37B7D4 for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:26:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id SAA26289; Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:26:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:26:28 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200003260226.SAA26289@apollo.backplane.com> To: Warner Losh Cc: Bruce Evans , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Anyone know why the syscall interface is using the doreti mechanism? References: <200003251012.CAA19991@apollo.backplane.com> <200003252038.NAA73468@harmony.village.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message