Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 11:52:22 +1100 From: David Dawes <dawes@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au>, mike@smith.net.au Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sio breakage Message-ID: <19981203115222.A3051@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <98Dec2.204608est.40351@border.alcanet.com.au>; from Peter Jeremy on Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 08:46:45PM %2B1100 References: <98Dec2.204608est.40351@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 02, 1998 at 08:46:45PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: >>> I don't believe this is reasonable. We should provide some safe way >>> for an application program to execute code with interrupts disabled. >>> Amongst other applications, XFree86 needs this. >> >>It shouldn't (ideally). >I agree. And whilst I haven't checked why, XFree86 does appear to >disable interrupts at times. I agree too, but it does disable interrupts when probing for fixed pixel clocks (which is mostly only done for obsolete hardware), and sometimes when programming PLLs. If someone has a better way of handling time critical thing like this (preferably in a portable way), please let me know. I'd love to dump our disable interrupt code. >> If it does, this is clearly indicative of a >>need to move some of the server code into the kernel, >You mean, like GGI <http://www.ggi-project.org/>; :-). There are some tasks that are much better suited to the kernel, and perhaps a better balance could be found by just doing those few selected things in the kernel and leaving the rest of it in user space. David To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981203115222.A3051>