From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jun 27 4:37:23 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from smtp03.wxs.nl (smtp03.wxs.nl [195.121.6.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E89315158 for ; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 04:37:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from asmodai@wxs.nl) Received: from daemon.ninth-circle.org ([195.121.196.255]) by smtp03.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.61) with ESMTP id AAA2F3F; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:37:07 +0200 Received: (from asmodai@localhost) by daemon.ninth-circle.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA24071; Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:24:44 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from asmodai) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:24:44 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai To: Peter Wemm Cc: Bruce Evans , mjacob@feral.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG, gibbs@plutotech.com, tech-kern@NetBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Changing the semantics of splsoftclock() Message-ID: <19990627132444.B23920@daemon.ninth-circle.org> References: <199906252228.IAA03303@godzilla.zeta.org.au> <19990627052642.3D12D75@overcee.netplex.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/0.96.3i In-Reply-To: <19990627052642.3D12D75@overcee.netplex.com.au>; from Peter Wemm on Sun, Jun 27, 1999 at 01:26:42PM +0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Peter Wemm (peter@netplex.com.au) [990627 09:02]: > Bruce Evans wrote: > > >>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. > > > > 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 would like to correct this, it is a source of problems when dealing with > NetBSD code. It would be a relatively harmless change for us since it's > failure mode is fairly benign. Old code calling splnet() that gets missed > will still work, just it will block more than is strictly required. > splimp() callers will get found quickly since they'll be an undefined > reference. I would say "go for it", but then again, I am merely a third rank BSD developer, not even a commiter on one BSD ;) However in the perspective of API cleanliness, it would be preffered from my point of view just for the consistency across the BSD's. > However, it would make backporting drivers from -current to 3.x a bit of a > problem.. Guess the STABLE-branch is off limits for these kind of changes without direct consent from core? Just my 0.02 euro's, -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmodai(at)wxs.nl The *BSD Programmer's Documentation Project Network/Security Specialist *BSD: We are back and will not accept no... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message