Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:00:04 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, Paolo Pisati <piso@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 102141 for review Message-ID: <200607241600.05305.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <44C279E9.9060002@samsco.org> References: <200607221233.k6MCXjIL033391@repoman.freebsd.org> <44C279E9.9060002@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 22 July 2006 15:18, Scott Long wrote: > Paolo Pisati wrote: > > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=102141 > > > > Change 102141 by piso@piso_longino on 2006/07/22 12:33:15 > > > > Use IF_FAST macro instead of directly checking flags, > > and axe an INTR_FAST check in swi_add(): is it possible > > for a software interrupt handler to have INTR_FAST defined? > > did it make sense at all? > > > > An swi is an ithread by definition, so INTR_FAST makes no sense to > it. Hence the EINVAL. :) Now that the flag no longer exists, the check can just be removed. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200607241600.05305.jhb>