From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 4 00:29:15 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE3016A4CE for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from anduin.net (anduin.net [212.12.46.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 744EE43FD7 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:29:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ltning@anduin.net) Received: (qmail 32047 invoked by uid 85); 4 Nov 2003 08:29:13 -0000 Received: from ltning@anduin.net by anduin.net by uid 82 with qmail-scanner-1.20rc1 (clamscan: 0.60. Clear:RC:1:. Processed in 0.201618 secs); 04 Nov 2003 08:29:13 -0000 X-Qmail-Scanner-Mail-From: ltning@anduin.net via anduin.net X-Qmail-Scanner: 1.20rc1 (Clear:RC:1:. Processed in 0.201618 secs) Received: from anduin.net (ltning@212.12.46.226) by anduin.net with SMTP; 4 Nov 2003 08:29:13 -0000 Message-ID: <3FA76353.3090308@anduin.net> Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:29:07 +0100 From: Eirik Oeverby User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031017 Thunderbird/0.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: Committing new interrupt code, tree will be broken X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:29:15 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 08:29:15 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > I'm committing the new i386 interrupt and SMP code, so buckle your > seat belts. :) I'll be intentionally breaking the kernel build at > the start and re-enable it with the last commit when I am done. > Is this *only* for SMP systems, or will the interrupt code also affect UNIprocessor boxes (like my laptop)? I'm suspecting some interrupt loss here, so I might give this new code a spin around the block. /Eirik