Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 09:21:12 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Nick Hibma <hibma@skylink.it> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, Doug Rabson <dfr@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD current Mailing list <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: priorities Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905210919380.509-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990520214837.3419A-100000@heidi.plazza.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 May 1999, Nick Hibma wrote: > > You set a 'low' priority for the ide match as -100. I suggest we use a > much lower value for that: -10000. With USB we have 15 levels already, > spaced ten apart (welcome back BASIC :) makes 150. > > Has anyone come up with a decent set of levels yet, or is the best bet > still Mike's example (can; > > > #define PRIORITY_STUB -10000 > #define PRIORITY_GENERIC -100 > #define PRIORITY_BEST 1 > #define PRIORITY_DEVICE 0 > #define PRIORITY_FAIL -1 > > It sounds like we can loads of haggling about the names there... The > last one is to take out the dependency on errno being greater than > zero. I would actually quite like to keep the possibility of returning an errno. It gives the possibility of returning an appropriate error if something strange happened (other than the hardware not being present). -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 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?Pine.BSF.4.05.9905210919380.509-100000>