From owner-freebsd-current Fri Jun 25 15:31:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBAAD15716 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:31:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from semuta.feral.com (semuta [192.67.166.70]) by feral.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA28427; Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:31:30 -0700 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:29:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Bruce Evans Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-kern@NetBSD.ORG, tech@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Changing the semantics of splsoftclock() In-Reply-To: <199906252228.IAA03303@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > >>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