Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 16:06:56 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Rafal Jaworowski <raj@semihalf.com> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 135517 for review Message-ID: <C249D2C2-1720-4B5A-93DC-1371660A3616@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <47B7793E.2020803@semihalf.com> References: <200802162141.m1GLfgkj048217@repoman.freebsd.org> <47B75EB3.2020001@semihalf.com> <504560A3-EABB-4896-8B3E-C7FC89F31EFB@mac.com> <47B76A8E.5060607@semihalf.com> <EDF429F2-E803-4FA7-A387-3A53D15A21F2@mac.com> <47B76FDA.7070008@semihalf.com> <19353798-6A4C-4360-B08B-51D0D2719B28@mac.com> <47B7793E.2020803@semihalf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 16, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Rafal Jaworowski wrote: >> We always call into U-Boot when we're waiting, so interrupts should >> be >> enabled when it's important. This is the case when we wait for time >> to >> pass, a key press or a network packet. In all those cases we >> shouldn't >> be running for extensive amounts of time with interrupts disabled, so >> we shouldn't lose too much precision, keys or packets. >> > > Well, the point is we would need to run with interrupts disabled > during all > loader's code paths, so that interrups could be allowed only for the > duration > of the syscall; not sure how this would serve. Anyway, let me know > your findings. > >> I'll play with this and see if that statement is true... >> > > From the other end: I'll take a look at U-Boot exceptions handlers > macros for > the prologue/epilogue and try to fix this down there. It shouldn't be > difficult, but propagating the changes to their main line code will > take time... Perfect: 2 people, 2 viewpoints, 2 angles, 1 short-term workaround and 1 long-term solution. Can't have it any better than this ;-) -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C249D2C2-1720-4B5A-93DC-1371660A3616>