Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:36:45 -0600 From: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com> To: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: FreeBSD-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Decisions, decisions Message-ID: <200007111336.HAA24067@berserker.bsdi.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
}> It seems that BSD/OS i386 and BSD/OS SPARC have chosen different names }> for the same function (intr_establish for i386, addintr for SPARC). }> Obviously I need to choose exactly one name. I'd like an opinion. }> }> For my way of thinking, addintr is closer to the terminology we use. }> The disadvantage is that the i386 code is riddled with }> intr_establishes, and this could confuse people importing code. Any }> thoughts? } }Interrupt connection is a bus method, and typically cascades through to }bus code at a fairly high level (often the nexus). Since the nexus code }is entirely machine-dependant, the name of this function is typically }irrelevant. } }The relevant bus methods are bus_setup_intr() and bus_teardown_intr(); I }would be inclined to suggest that you use these or some derivative therof }in keeping with our existing conventions for method implementations. } }(ie. nexus_setup_intr if in the nexus code, etc.) Agreed, using the bus interface is the way to go. BSD/OS does not yet have the machine independent bus stuff. Intr_establish() use to be in FreeBSD and has been replaced. I believe you should be able to leave the interface alone. You will probably want to temporarily smuggle the bit saying that a driver is MP safe rather than explicitly changing the interface in a whole bunch of places. Looking I see that it could go in the type field reasonably cleanly. Chuck To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007111336.HAA24067>