--H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 03:37:58PM -0700, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>=20
> In message <20050606221017.GA1761@netbsd.org>Bill Studenmund writes
>=20
> >I'm now confused a bit.
> >
> >If we have the ability to mark drivers as SMP-safe on a per-driver case,
> >does it matter if we have one-big-lock or per-spl locks? Isn't it the sa=
me
> >work either way (in terms just of letting a driver be SMP-safe or not)?
>=20
> Ahhh, but we *dont* have the ability to mark drivers SMP-safe on a
> driver-by driver basis -- unless we do one of:
>=20
>   i) fold all device IPLs into a single level, as in Yamamoto-san's
>      patch from Dec 2030, or

I guess my confusion is that don't we have interrupt handlers grab the big=
=20
lock now? So don't we have an implicit mono-leveling now?

Or is that it's important to have the big lock and one or more separate=20
interrupt locks?

Take care,

Bill

--H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCpOzhWz+3JHUci9cRAmWlAJ9hpPBaKIE4zQIFa/CoJqAGedt3rQCgkoT1
DKQAgcEgSmM3q7VghDPsLGY=
=9LG7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--H+4ONPRPur6+Ovig--