Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 02:09:17 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: more device driver question 8) Message-ID: <199511291009.CAA03474@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199511290927.JAA11541@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Nov 29, 95 09:27:22 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
that's the way I understand it but now you've got ME worried.. :) > > Ah. This implies that interrupt priorities are kept on a per-process basis, > correct? > > So for a 'tty' device driver, I could safely say > > spltty() > enable_interrupt() > tsleep() > splx() > > and be sure that interrupts from the device won't be enabled until after > the current process sleeps? >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511291009.CAA03474>