Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:29:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-kern@NetBSD.ORG, tech@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Changing the semantics of splsoftclock() Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9906251528100.38018-100000@semuta.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <199906252228.IAA03303@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >>Why have splr semantics? That is, it raises to splsoftclock if current > >>priority is lower, else doesn't fiddle with it. > > splsoftclock() has always had spllower() semantics, and its main users > (kern_clock.c and kern_time.c) depend on this. Okay. Then Justin's suggestion of splcallout with splr semantics makes sense? > > FreeBSD has a precedent of not changing poor spl names because the change > would be confusing: splnet() should be named splsoftnet() and splimp() > should be named splnet() as in NetBSD. I'm not sure what this means. I guess the gist is "don't change splsoftclock". To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9906251528100.38018-100000>