Hi! tsutsui-san,


From: Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui@ceres.dti.ne.jp>
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:49:12 +0900

> kiyohara@kk.iij4u.or.jp wrote:
> 
> > > >   #define _splnoclock()	  _spllower(MIPS_INT_MASK_5 | MIPS_SR_INT_IE)
> > > 
> > > IMHO, this usage doesn't match "system priority level" definitions
> > > (i.e. splfoo() implies something to "raise" the system priority level)
> > > so it might be better to have some other name, like enable_devintr()
> > > or enable_extintr() etc? (in <mips/mips3_clock.h>?)
> > 
> > It cannot be thought that the name such as devintr and extintr is
> > appropriateness to me. 
> > In this case, I think that more directly name 'noclock' is the best. 
> 
> IMO `enable_intr_noclock()' also looks ambiguous, but we should ask
> other native mips guys...
> 
> Another possible option is just removing spl calls from MD cpu_configure(9)
> so that we don't have to choose any names?

hmm...
How is this problem done?
There are none of reactions from mips guys... ;-<

Thanks,
--
kiyohara