In article <000e01c3232d$a8ce2ad0$0a00a8c0@PAQ2>
locore32@gaea.ocn.ne.jp wrote:

> Now, recognizing I provide no answer to Mr. Tsutsui, I would like bring
> a rather obscure point instead.   The existence of netisr variable is an
> in-appropriate.   Delivering crafted protocol controlling thread via
> netintr() is e-v-i-l.   We're going toward SMP with fine-grained lock
> and lightweight in-kernel threading anyway, why should we stay with
> the old-and-archaic leftover of softintr()/netintr() scheme?  I want
> to see a cool solution in MI area.

I know we should switch more modern way like Solaris as Jolitz says,
but for now I'd just like to know if current implementation will work
as expected or not...
---
Izumi Tsutsui
tsutsui@ceres.dti.ne.jp