From owner-freebsd-hardware  Wed Sep 18 22:59:31 1996
Return-Path: owner-hardware
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA04993
          for hardware-outgoing; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lserver.infoworld.com (root@lserver.infoworld.com [192.216.48.4])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id WAA04979
          for <hardware@freebsd.org>; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ccgate.infoworld.com (ccgate.infoworld.com [192.216.49.101]) by lserver.infoworld.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id WAA29248; Wed, 18 Sep 1996 22:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: BRETT_GLASS@infoworld.com
Received: from ccMail by ccgate.infoworld.com (SMTPLINK V2.11)
	id AA843112557; Thu, 19 Sep 96 00:44:45 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 00:44:45 PST
Message-Id: <9608188431.AA843112557@ccgate.infoworld.com>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, hardware@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: More or fewer IRQs?
Sender: owner-hardware@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

Bruce:

If what you say is true, the only place I can be sure to save time (this is
on a 486DX4/100) is at the ICU by setting those AUTO_EOI flags. But how
safe are these? I was getting missed IDE completion interrupts with a
kernel that had AUTO_EOI_1 on, but don't know if that was the only source
of the problem. (I've changed a LOT of options in more recent kernels.)

--Brett