* Peter Wemm ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [990627 09:02]:
> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > >>Why have splr semantics? That is, it raises to splsoftclock if current
> > >>priority is lower, else doesn't fiddle with it.
> >
> > splsoftclock() has always had spllower() semantics, and its main users
> > (kern_clock.c
Bruce Evans wrote:
> >>Why have splr semantics? That is, it raises to splsoftclock if current
> >>priority is lower, else doesn't fiddle with it.
>
> splsoftclock() has always had spllower() semantics, and its main users
> (kern_clock.c and kern_time.c) depend on this.
>
> FreeBSD has a preceden
> >>Why have splr semantics? That is, it raises to splsoftclock if current
> >>priority is lower, else doesn't fiddle with it.
>
> splsoftclock() has always had spllower() semantics, and its main users
> (kern_clock.c and kern_time.c) depend on this.
Okay. Then Justin's suggestion of splcallout
>>Why have splr semantics? That is, it raises to splsoftclock if current
>>priority is lower, else doesn't fiddle with it.
splsoftclock() has always had spllower() semantics, and its main users
(kern_clock.c and kern_time.c) depend on this.
FreeBSD has a precedent of not changing poor spl names
[ I've dropped [EMAIL PROTECTED] based on a request from Theo since
he cannot post back to some of these lists. ]
>Why have splr semantics? That is, it raises to splsoftclock if current
>priority is lower, else doesn't fiddle with it.
This is what I meant to suggest, but if this is not doable,
Why have splr semantics? That is, it raises to splsoftclock if current
priority is lower, else doesn't fiddle with it.
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> I've come across several instances where I need to fiddle with state that
> is also touched by a timeout handler. From a naming s
[ Sorry for the duplicate message for some of you. I botched the headers
on the original mail. ]
I've come across several instances where I need to fiddle with state that
is also touched by a timeout handler. From a naming standpoint,
splsoftclock() sounds like the correct spl routine to use
I've come across several instances where I need to fiddle with state that
is also touched by a timeout handler. From a naming standpoint,
splsoftclock() sounds like the correct spl routine to use for protecting
these activities. Unfortunately this only holds true if splsoftclock()
is used in a p
I've come across several instances where I need to fiddle with state that
is also touched by a timeout handler. From a naming standpoint,
splsoftclock() sounds like the correct spl routine to use for protecting
these activities. Unfortunately this only holds true if splsoftclock()
is used in a p
