Subject: Re: splx() optimization [was Re: SMP re-eetrancy in "bottom half"
To: None <jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt@mwd.biglobe.ne.jp>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/01/2005 15:01:11
hi,

> If we start going down route of making the network stack even partially
> SMP-safe, then I think the consensus on tech-kern is that we'll also
> need to head in the direction of making all interrupts ordered; with
> associated, hierarchically-ordered (spin)locks at each level.

i didn't notice such a consensus.  can you give me a pointer?

i don't see any needs to have all interrupts ordered.
i won't object if you want to make them ordered as
a transient convention, tho.

YAMAMOTO Takashi