Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:23:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mjacob@feral.com Cc: jhb@FreeBSD.ORG (John Baldwin), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: man pages Message-ID: <200103162323.QAA18245@usr07.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0103161420150.773-100000@zeppo.feral.com> from "Matthew Jacob" at Mar 16, 2001 02:21:58 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Actually, I think you only need disable_intr && restore_intr, which should be > paired over tight MD code sections, and yes, leaving it ambigious is desirable > IMO. [ .. man page ... ] > It is deliberately left undefined whether this disables interrupts > only on the calling CPU or whether this disables interrupts across > the entire system. Clearly it must be used with caution and does > not eliminate the need for appropriate locking. Rather than doing this, wouldn't it just be easier to say that it can not be uses for inter-CPU synchronization, but may result in inter-CPU synchronization as a side effect on some architectures? Given that it's going to be used, and it's vaue, you might even go so far as to claim "as an undesirable side effect"... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200103162323.QAA18245>