From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Jan 18 08:01:28 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDA5CB4040 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:01:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (turbocat.net [88.99.82.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 671211908; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:01:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from hps2016.home.selasky.org (unknown [62.141.129.119]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0DEB1FE025; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:01:08 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Strange issue after early AP startup To: John Baldwin References: <1484682389.86335.166.camel@freebsd.org> <11f27a15-f9bc-8988-a17e-78aeff1745fb@selasky.org> <3558195.Ack1AKBXSB@ralph.baldwin.cx> Cc: Ian Lepore , FreeBSD Current , Konstantin Belousov From: Hans Petter Selasky Message-ID: <24593c49-b0d5-8aaf-e11b-bfef4704267e@selasky.org> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:00:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3558195.Ack1AKBXSB@ralph.baldwin.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 08:01:28 -0000 On 01/18/17 02:18, John Baldwin wrote: > You might still want to adjust 'nextevent' to schedule the next interrupt > to be sooner than 'timerperiod' though. You could just set 'nextevent' to > 'now' in that case instead of 'next'. Right, I'll give that a spin. Would have to be "now + 1" instead of "now", due to check before et_start() ? --HPS