In message <20060303200305.GA14465@panix.com>,Thor Lancelot Simon writes:
>On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:37:31AM -0800, Jonathan Stone wrote:

>Leaving the other issues aside: why should the bge not always claim that
>the interrupt was _not_ for it?  Because that would generate "spurious
>interrupt N" messages on the system console?

I dunno, that aspect predates my invovlement with the code. In fact I
think it goes back to Bill Paul's original FreeBSD-4 driver.


>Perhaps we need a way for the driver to respond "I don't know" in such
>cases, so the interrupt is still passed down the chain, but nothing
>complains.

Yep, that's what I was not-so-subtly getting at when I wrote
elsewhere:


>Thor, Jason: Suppose, for the sake of argument, one is writing a
>NetBSD driver for hardware where it's not always possible to tell
>awhether the device generated an interrupt on a shared IRQ, or not.
>
>What should the interrupt routine return in that case?