[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network
From: |
Roland McGrath |
Subject: |
Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:56:37 -0400 (EDT) |
I'm glad to hear it's working for you, but that's still not quite the way
I'd like to see it. (The only errors I see are in the conservative
direction, i.e. it works fine, it just blocks interrupts more of the time
than it needs to.) Again, thanks a lot for hacking on this and being so
receptive to feedback about your code.
Firstly, you don't need to call osenv_softintr_disable in softclock_oskit.
That's why you're running at splsoftslock; i.e., it will always be a no-op.
In osenv_softintr_disable, you should compare against SPL1 (which is
splsoftclock) instead of SPLIO.
softint_handler should not call osenv_intr_* at all.
There is no reason for it. Software interrupts are not hardware interrupts.
Personally, I'd use ffs rather than iterating from 0 to check the mask (ffs
is optimized to a single x86 instruction).
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Roland McGrath, 2001/09/04
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Daniel Wagner, 2001/09/04
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Roland McGrath, 2001/09/04
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Daniel Wagner, 2001/09/06
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Roland McGrath, 2001/09/07
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Daniel Wagner, 2001/09/18
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Daniel Wagner, 2001/09/20
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Roland McGrath, 2001/09/23
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Daniel Wagner, 2001/09/23
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network, Daniel Wagner, 2001/09/29
- Re: oskit-mach & oskit-20010214: network,
Roland McGrath <=