In message <20070301222249.GA26994@panix.com>,
Thor Lancelot Simon writes:
>On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 09:19:56PM +0200, Mindaugas R. wrote:
>>
>> Well, I am implementing this model, right now. What would you suggest as a
>> long-time solution?
>
>Kernel continuations.  These weren't very useful for a long time because
>they required generic softint support, and some ports didn't have it.  But
>now that all ports are required to, we could use kcont(9) for many things.

Is there any reason not to enable kcont(9) by default, rather than
having it as an option which defaults off?  I think it's only the init
call in init_main() which depends on the "option kcont" ifdef, and
of course the sys/kern/kern_kcont.c centry in sys/conf/files.

Andrew, is kcont well-behaved with regard to IPLs in your Brave New
Non-SA World?  I seem to recall yamt raising a query at some point,
too, but I don't recall what it was. Something about ordering of
(soft) ipls??