Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 11:43:20 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, brandon@glacier.cold.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: splash-page on bootup.. Message-ID: <199609231843.LAA02548@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199609230148.LAA21904@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Sep 23, 96 11:18:25 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > This is only because we are stupid and use DELAY() instead of a > > calibrated timer list of one-shot outcall functions. Using a > > spinloop is just inherently stupid. > > Uh? You are still thinking like a CS guy, not a hardware programmer. "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." (I yam what I yam 8-)). > When I am looking for some hardware in a probe routine, I want _nothing_ > _nada_ _zip_ happening behind my back. No interrupts, no "strategically > placed callbacks", nothing. > > This has nothing to do with how DELAY() works, it's basic 'least surprise' > stuff. You could make the same argument against using virtual memory. 8-|. >From a process perspective on a timesharing machine, nothing *is* happening "behind its back" to the virtual machine in which the process resides. It's "basic fractal complexity stuff": you look at the whole system, and it's complicated. You look at the process runtime environment from the process perspective, and it's vastly less complicated (but it is the same system). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609231843.LAA02548>