From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 25 22:28:26 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9368737B400 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10BA43E72 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:28:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g7Q5SN2F014652 for ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:28:24 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 23:27:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20020825.232759.27153304.imp@bsdimp.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Fast interrupts From: "M. Warner Losh" X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG can you call wakeup(9) from a fast interrupt handler? I couldn't find the specific answer from the man page: All processes sleeping on a single ident are woken up later by wakeup, often called from inside an interrupt routine, to indicate that the resource the pro- cess was blocking on is available now. The only reason I ask is because sio seems to go out of its way to schedule a soft interrupt to deal with waking up processes, which then calls wakeup... Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message