Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:38:16 +0200
From:      Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>
To:        Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: INTR_FILTER?
Message-ID:  <4986DB28.6080503@icyb.net.ua>
In-Reply-To: <E61A19DE-0435-44EC-A24F-F9330F3DF1E6@freebsd.org>
References:  <49819757.2010002@icyb.net.ua> <8F669786-30A2-458C-8A6B-3272297ADE14@freebsd.org> <4981EC95.1090002@icyb.net.ua> <E61A19DE-0435-44EC-A24F-F9330F3DF1E6@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 30/01/2009 00:30 Rui Paulo said the following:
> On 29 Jan 2009, at 17:51, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> BTW, INTR_FILTER seems quite useful. Why, then, it is not the default?
> 
> The drivers would have to be ported to INTR_FILTER. Right now, only asmc
> is using INTR_FILTER, so I don't think there is much gain in making it
> the default.

I am not sure about this part. From the code it seems that INTR_FILTER
is backward-compatible, i.e. it gives something and doesn't take away
anything. The API and conventions seems to be the same too.
There could be some edge cases, of course.

-- 
Andriy Gapon



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4986DB28.6080503>