From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 5 11:40:29 2007 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 EB6E316A404; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:40:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: perforce@freebsd.org Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A18A316A402 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:40:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from piso@newluxor.wired.org) Received: from mail.oltrelinux.com (krisma.oltrelinux.com [194.242.226.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F64F13C442 for ; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:40:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from piso@newluxor.wired.org) Received: from newluxor.wired.org (ip-115-132.sn1.eutelia.it [62.94.115.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.oltrelinux.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49EDE11AE43; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:13:12 +0100 (CET) Received: (from piso@localhost) by newluxor.wired.org (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l25BCxL1001536; Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:12:59 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from piso) Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 12:12:58 +0100 From: Paolo Pisati To: "M. Warner Losh" Message-ID: <20070305111258.GA1501@tin.it> References: <200703031614.l23GE0QR013965@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070303.135040.179932401.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070303.135040.179932401.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at krisma.oltrelinux.com Cc: perforce@freebsd.org, piso@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 115279 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: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:40:29 -0000 On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:50:40PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > I think we should re-evaluate how CSC interrupts are handled for > CardBus and PC Card in general, which might simplify things in this > area of the code. It was originally put into place to handle sudden, > surprise removal of the cards in a (mostly) sane way. Now that the > underlying reasons for having these checks are gone, it would make > things better if this could be investigated... I'll have to add it to > my list... If you have any suggestion to simplify the code, i'm all ears. bye, P.