In article <20051118132954.C437823403@thoreau.thistledown.com.au>
simonb@wasabisystems.com wrote:

> Ah, the case where we come in to cpu_intr() with only soft interrupts?
> Indeed we'll then leave all interrupts disabled while we process the
> software interrupts.

I wonder why such a trivial bug is left even though it has already
been noted in TODO. (I'm afraid there might be any bad side effects ;-)

> Does it make sense to have _clrsoftintr() enable interrupts?  It's not
> quite the right name for such a function, but I guess it makes sense
> for it to enable interrupts.  I'm not sure whether we should rename it
> though (or what to rename it to).

All _clrsoftintr() is placed just before softintr hander so
it seems ok though I don't know good name for the function either.
_acksoftintr()? _enablesoftintr()? inline asm in MI softintr_dispatch()?

> As an aside, it looks like it would make sense to put the prototype for
> _clrsoftintr() in <mips/softintr.h>, and remove it from <machine/intr.h>
> for those ports that use the MIPS "MI" softintrs.  Do you agree?

Looks okay, but it's better (and trivial) to fix ports which
haven't switched to MI softintr? ;-)
(playstation2 uses the one-shot timer rather than mips _setsoftintr()
 for softintr though)
---
Izumi Tsutsui