From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Nov 29 02:09:55 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id CAA27210
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 02:09:55 -0800
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id CAA27204
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 02:09:47 -0800
Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id CAA03474; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 02:09:18 -0800
From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>
Message-Id: <199511291009.CAA03474@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: more device driver question 8)
To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 02:09:17 -0800 (PST)
Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199511290927.JAA11541@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Nov 29, 95 09:27:22 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 383       
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

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?  
>