Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:29:28 +0200 From: Paolo Pisati <piso@freebsd.org> To: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com> Cc: Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 102954 for review Message-ID: <20060801192928.GA34484@tin.it> In-Reply-To: <44CFA3DB.2090801@errno.com> References: <200608011725.k71HP4ol019342@repoman.freebsd.org> <44CF928B.7020102@errno.com> <200608011434.07440.jhb@freebsd.org> <44CFA3DB.2090801@errno.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 11:56:27AM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote: > Basically yes, the stuff run in the private taskq thread should run in > the deferred interrupt context. The only issue is how to handle beacon > processing (and in the future UAPSD processing). I'm not familiar with > what's allowed to run in a filter routine but deferring the beacon frame > generation is likely not going to work and the work done to post a > beacon frame may do calls that are not permitted. a filter handler is just like a fast handler returning a value. BTW i see many calls from ath_intr() to the blob hal interface, are those functions blocking? bye -- Paolo Piso's first law: nothing works as expected!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060801192928.GA34484>