From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Mar 17 10:20:59 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FDC37B718; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 10:20:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f2HIKq945996; Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:20:52 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Message-Id: <200103171820.f2HIKq945996@harmony.village.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: man pages Cc: John Baldwin , Matthew Jacob , arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 17 Mar 2001 19:05:45 +0100." <30209.984852345@critter> References: <30209.984852345@critter> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 11:20:52 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <30209.984852345@critter> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : In message <200103171803.f2HI3Q945895@harmony.village.org>, Warner Losh writes: : >Just wanted to show : >an example that needed it, not for synchronization, but to assume total : >control of the CPU and to make everyone else wait while I do my : >semi-time critical hardware frobbing. : : I agree, there are lots of applications where it is a must to be : able to do that, and we can either provide a civilized API for it : or suffer all the weird hacks people will implement themselves... My hardware was UP. I don't know what I'd want this to mean in an MP environment. For my app, one CPU is fine (since the bus bandwidth I use in my handsprings is minimal). This likely is the typical case. I have trouble thinking of why someone would want to do this on multiple CPUs at the same time, unless it involved synchronization. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message