on 02/02/2009 13:53 Rui Paulo said the following: > > On 2 Feb 2009, at 11:38, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> 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. > > Ok, but why enable it in GENERIC right now if the only driver that uses > INTR_FILTER is asmc? > There's not much point in enabling it now. Maybe in the future.
I may be wrong but this could auto-magically improve some cases where there are shared interrupts between drivers with ithreads. In this case, I think, their interrupt handler would be run "in parallel" instead of sequentially. Also, it would make it easier to write new drivers - one would not have to code for !INTR_FILTER case. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
