From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Nov 1 21:40:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA00825 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:40:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from trojanhorse.ml.org (mdean.vip.best.com [206.86.94.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA00820 for ; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:40:33 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jamil@trojanhorse.ml.org) Received: from localhost (jamil@localhost) by trojanhorse.ml.org (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA00800; Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:40:14 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 21:40:14 -0800 (PST) From: "Jamil J. Weatherbee" To: Simon Shapiro cc: Mike Smith , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, dufault@hda.com Subject: Re: Strategy Routines In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Setup the copy, shcedule software insterrupt. > > The software interrupt routine gets control, copies a chunk, does the > bookkeeping. If not done, schedules another interrupt and returns. > > I think it has lower overhead than tslepp and the added advantage that it > will not panic if called outside a user context. > Wait, are you talking about doing an acquire_timer0() and then doing work in the routine you assign or what? That's one thing I don't understand, it seems with that particualr facility only one routine can be active on the timer 0 interrupt at a time, so that is why I have avoided it for these kinds of situations. Can someone let me in on the big secret.