From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Apr 3 00:08:08 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id AAA08444 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 00:08:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA08367 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 00:07:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from msmith@localhost by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) id RAA19778 for hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 17:58:57 +0930 From: Michael Smith Message-Id: <199604030828.RAA19778@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: i386 rep (blah) and interrupts... To: hackers@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 17:58:57 +0930 (CST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi y'all. Have a question regarding a driver I'm (still) working on. In the read function, one of the input methods I'm contemplating basically involves insw(sc->sc_port,sc->sc_buf,sc->sc_pending); ... which basically translates to the i386 'rep insw' construct. It's not inconcievable that sc->sc_pending could run to several tens of K, and what I don't know is whether this construct is interruptible or not. If it isn't, obviously I'll want to slice it up into smaller slabs. If it is, then bigger is faster, and speed is fairly important. Anyone can comment? -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control (ph/fax) +61-8-267-3039 [[ ]] Collector of old Unix hardware. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[