From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jul 17 05:17:31 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 93B7216A4CE; Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:17:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 26A3443D39; Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:17:31 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i6H5Fgvs003648;
	Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:15:42 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:15:49 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20040716.231549.58438445.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: green@freebsd.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040715180854.GZ1626@green.homeunix.org>
References: <20040715180854.GZ1626@green.homeunix.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: pccbb crashes when detaching (unsafe interrupt handler)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:17:31 -0000

In message: <20040715180854.GZ1626@green.homeunix.org>
            Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> writes:
: This is what I have so far, but I'm not happy with it because it
: seems like it would be so much nicer to increment a count on the
: ithread's intrhand and drain any current interrupt out of the
: ithread, but possibly making each interrupt a lot more expensive.

I don't like this.  And I don't understand the problem at all.  If the
device isn't there, we already handle it correctly.  I think that it
is a lot of code to handle an extremely rare case.  I don't like
taking out an sx lock on every single interrupt.

Please do not commit this.  Thanks.

Warner