Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:04:32 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: FreeBSD-smp@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions Message-ID: <200007110504.WAA09189@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:11:02 %2B0930." <20000711141102.F23115@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It seems that BSD/OS i386 and BSD/OS SPARC have chosen different names > for the same function (intr_establish for i386, addintr for SPARC). > Obviously I need to choose exactly one name. I'd like an opinion. > > For my way of thinking, addintr is closer to the terminology we use. > The disadvantage is that the i386 code is riddled with > intr_establishes, and this could confuse people importing code. Any > thoughts? Interrupt connection is a bus method, and typically cascades through to bus code at a fairly high level (often the nexus). Since the nexus code is entirely machine-dependant, the name of this function is typically irrelevant. The relevant bus methods are bus_setup_intr() and bus_teardown_intr(); I would be inclined to suggest that you use these or some derivative therof in keeping with our existing conventions for method implementations. (ie. nexus_setup_intr if in the nexus code, etc.) -- ... 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-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007110504.WAA09189>