From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jul 18 20:58: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FDB937B7FE; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:57:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e6J3vuP14070; Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:57:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:57:56 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Mike Smith Cc: Greg Lehey , arch@FreeBSD.ORG, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Tidying up the interrupt registration process Message-ID: <20000718205756.Q13979@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20000719130907.H12072@wantadilla.lemis.com> <200007190403.VAA21389@mass.osd.bsdi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <200007190403.VAA21389@mass.osd.bsdi.com>; from msmith@FreeBSD.ORG on Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 09:03:59PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Mike Smith [000718 20:55] wrote: > > Sharing a 'fast' interrupt completely defeats the point of making it > 'fast'. You should not be able to register a 'fast' handler on any > source with anything else attached, nor anything else on a source that > has a 'fast' handler already registered. Yes, this does impose some > configuration constraints on the system, but there are few viable > alternatives. Just wondering, could a device fall back to non-fast mode if the hardware forced this sort of situation but still complain about it? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message