Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 08:58:54 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/ed if_ed.c if_ed_pccard.c if_edvar.h Message-ID: <432ED22E.5010005@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050919145417.GE83017@ip.net.ua> References: <200509182051.j8IKpYGU073493@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050919054051.GB65954@ip.net.ua> <20050919.083111.123550990.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050919145417.GE83017@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 08:31:11AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > >>In message: <20050919054051.GB65954@ip.net.ua> >> Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org> writes: >>: About the commonality... Usually foo_stop() (which is called first in >>: foo_detach() if you were talking about the detach) disables interrupts, >>: so foo_intr() doesn't usually happen. From reading the code, I see the >>: same holds true for ed(4). >> >>Wrong. Foo_intr() does still happen because other devices can >>generate interrupts... >> > > Ah, you're right, I missed this bit. :-) > Shared interrupts are only slightly less of an abomination as shared ithreads =-) Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?432ED22E.5010005>