Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:00:20 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>, nms@otdel-1.org, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is there spinlocks/semaphores available for drivers? Message-ID: <200003272200.OAA00995@mass.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:55:57 MST." <200003271755.KAA26648@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > :> 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. > > > > First, each PCI slot has *two* assignable interrupts. Four, actually, although the typical routing setup reduces their effectiveness. > > Second, CardBus cards are so slow that you would see absolutely no > > gain in performance whatsoever by being able to run concurrent interrupt > > threads for a single shared interrupt. > > Huh? CardBus cards are *not* slow. PCMCIA cards are, but CardBus is > pretty dang fast. I think you're at cross purposes here. Matt's point is that you wouldn't be able to run interrupt handler threads for more than one device on a shared interrupt at a time, not that you would never be able to support shared interrupts. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com 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?200003272200.OAA00995>