Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:15:53 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Tidying up the interrupt registration process Message-ID: <200007190415.VAA21470@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:57:56 PDT." <20000718205756.Q13979@fw.wintelcom.net>
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? You don't typically bother requesting a 'fast' interrupt unless you really need it. This decision would have to be left up to the device driver - some might be OK accepting the tradeoff (eg. sio), wheras for others this might constitute a fatal error. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] 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?200007190415.VAA21470>