Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 06:39:31 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: pav@FreeBSD.org Cc: trhodes@FreeBSD.org, doc@FreeBSD.org, devon.odell@coyotepoint.com Subject: Re: Fix for ithread.9 Message-ID: <20060826063931.566f3d78.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1156587111.67821.4.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> References: <44EF355D.5050208@coyotepoint.com> <1156532704.8612.2.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <20060825195110.450a1a7b.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <1156587111.67821.4.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:11:51 +0200 Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> wrote: > Tom Rhodes píše v pá 25. 08. 2006 v 19:51 -0400: > > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:05:04 +0200 > > Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > Devon H. O'Dell pí¹e v pá 25. 08. 2006 v 13:37 -0400: > > > > > > > I was discussing UMA with Robert Watson yesterday; specifically its > > > > usage implications in an interrupt context. He suggested adding some > > > > information to ithread(9) specifying semantics for memory allocation in > > > > an interrupt context. So I came up with this tiny patch, shot it jhb@'s > > > > way, he reviewed it and told me to shoot it this way. > > > > > > > > So here it is, apparently ready to be committed. > > > > > > Applied, thanks! > > > > After you fixed the hard sentence break issue, right Pav? ;) > > Of course, Tom. ;) -- Tom Rhodeshelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060826063931.566f3d78.trhodes>