Subject: Re: IPL-lowering functions should return 'void', and now they do.
To: Ben Harris <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/08/2000 11:59:54
>>Looking through some code, I've noticed that spllowersoftclock() and
>>spl0() -- IPL-lowering functions -- return 'int'. splx(), on the
>>other hand (the other IPL-lowering function), returns void. in one
>>place, the return value of spl0() is actually used as the argument to
>>I've updated the spl(9) manual page to indicate that the IPL-lowering
>>functions return 'void.' I've not changed any ports at this time.
>>Rather, I expect them to be updated over time.
>The manual page seems to be uncertain about whether splx() is ever used to
>raise priority. I'd assume that it isn't, but it'd be nice for it to be
>confirmed by Someone Who Knows.
functional orthogonality aside, wouldn't the return value of splx()
only be an issue of someone were trying to actually use it elsewhere?
it seems to me that splx() ought to be allowed to return void but that
the others should all return the previous ipl. i can, after all,
always ignore the return value of the spl() function if i don't need
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
email@example.com * "ah! i see you have the internet
firstname.lastname@example.org (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
email@example.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."