From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 27 10:24:59 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from trinity.skynet.be (trinity.skynet.be [195.238.2.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 251C437BFE7 for ; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:24:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from blk@skynet.be) Received: from [195.238.1.121] (brad.techos.skynet.be [195.238.1.121]) by trinity.skynet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02DF181EA; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:24:51 +0200 (MET DST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200003271753.JAA41782@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200003271731.JAA41585@apollo.backplane.com> <200003271746.KAA26582@nomad.yogotech.com> <200003271753.JAA41782@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:24:20 +0200 To: Matthew Dillon , Nate Williams From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Is there spinlocks/semaphores available for drivers? Cc: Daniel Eischen , nms@otdel-1.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 9:53 AM -0800 2000/3/27, Matthew Dillon wrote: > So, frankly, it is perfectly acceptable. I can't think of a single > real-life setup that would sufffer. What about things like Adaptec 3940U2W controllers that have two SCSI interfaces, and by default I believe will want shared interrupts? Or controllers that have more then two interfaces? Or have I missed something fundamental here and this is not what you're talking about? -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ====================================================================== Brad Knowles, || Belgacom Skynet SA/NV Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin || Rue Colonel Bourg, 124 Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/12.49 || B-1140 Brussels http://www.skynet.be || Belgium To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message