Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:46:08 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, nms@otdel-1.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is there spinlocks/semaphores available for drivers? Message-ID: <200003271746.KAA26582@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <200003271731.JAA41585@apollo.backplane.com> References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000327072156.16642A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> <200003271731.JAA41585@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> :> *not* preempted except when being interrupted, so there are no > :> 'priorities', per say. Or, rather, the relative priority is strictly > :> that the interrupt takes priority over supervisor code except when > :> disabled by said supervisor code. > : > :But locks with owners wouldn't have to disable interrupts (given that > :we have interrupt threads). What about shared interrupts? You could > :still field and process the interrupt as long as it was for a different > :device. > :Dan Eischen > > The word 'too bad' comes to mind re: shared interrupts. Too bad is not acceptable. If we want to support multi-function PCMCIA/CardBus cards, we *must* do shared interrupts, and multi-function cards are becoming the standard, rather than the exception. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200003271746.KAA26582>