[ ... and on a more serious note, about splimp() ]

>    Then why isn't it called splmalloc(), or something like that?
>    splimp() implies to me something to do with networking.
> 
> It's historical.  Changing the name would be gratuitous.

Uh...

the code was just changed so that:
	(1) splnet now blocks networking hardware interrupts,
	(2) splsoftnet now does what splnet used to do,
	(3) splimp no longer has nothing directly to do with
		networking interrupts,

and you're worried that changing the name would be gratuitous?

Changing the other names is arguably just as gratuituous.  You
changed the traditional use of a function, implemented a new function
to do what it used to...  yet you argue against renaming a function,
even though renaming it would make the fact clear that _something_
fundamental had changed?


chris