From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 1 21:19:12 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FFE137B413 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 21:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA43443FB1 for ; Thu, 1 May 2003 21:19:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.8/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h424ItA7013532; Thu, 1 May 2003 22:19:02 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 22:18:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20030501.221831.05706976.imp@bsdimp.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20030502033051.C20181@gamplex.bde.org> References: <1721460000.1051803729@aslan.btc.adaptec.com> <20030501.101409.57443470.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030502033051.C20181@gamplex.bde.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: gallatin@cs.duke.edu cc: jhb@FreeBSD.org cc: gibbs@scsiguy.com cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/fxp if_fxp.c if_fxpvar.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 04:19:13 -0000 In message: <20030502033051.C20181@gamplex.bde.org> Bruce Evans writes: : You can't easily turn it off either. It may be running, or about to : be run, and running it may turn interrupts back on. Perhaps fxp_intr() : doesn't need to do this, but some interrupt handler do. They would : need potentially expensive flags or locks or a different interrupt : handler to tell them to act differently during detach. Perhaps a : single lock is enough, but this thread started with a complaint that : a single flag test was too expensive (as it may be when you do it a : billion times here and there). It wouldn't be too bad if you held the value to write in the softc. That would mean just an extra indirect load for those drivers that need to do this. Warner