From owner-freebsd-arch  Fri Mar 16  1:41:41 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4EF1037B718; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:41:39 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mjacob@feral.com)
Received: from beppo (beppo [192.67.166.79])
	by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA21665;
	Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:41:29 -0800
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 01:41:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com>
Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com
To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>
Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Proposal for the CPU interrupt API
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.33.0103160928560.47065-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103160138210.75559-100000@beppo.feral.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


> On the alpha, IPL is a cpu-local attribute as far as I know.

The Alpha architecture books are fairly clear that IPL is part of the
processor status word which is per-cpu.

But the semantics of interrupt disabling *may* be construed to be just
disabling all interrupts for all CPUs. I was serious  when I said there
might be an advantage to leaving this vague at this time rather than trying to
nail it down.

(in the PPC architecture I believe that page faults are interrupts)

-matt



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message