Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:57:56 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Tidying up the interrupt registration process Message-ID: <20000718205756.Q13979@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200007190403.VAA21389@mass.osd.bsdi.com>; from msmith@FreeBSD.ORG on Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 09:03:59PM -0700 References: <20000719130907.H12072@wantadilla.lemis.com> <200007190403.VAA21389@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> [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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000718205756.Q13979>