> Then what's the point of splimp()?  Its entire reason for existing now
> is to serialize access to malloc() and free().  All you'd do by making
> them use splhigh() is make it so that nothing else can be squozen in
> between.  That's silly, and would make it impossible to implement,
> e.g., a working sound driver, unless one chose to simply bypass the
> normal hierarchy.

Then why isn't it called splmalloc(), or something like that?
splimp() implies to me something to do with networking.

>    It makes no
>    sense to me that disk interrupts should necessarily be blocked while
>    processing ethernet interrupts.
> 
> They're not, except during malloc() or free(), and changing those to
> use splhigh() wouldn't change that fact.

Then if the lance driver is running for a long time at splimp(), it's
probably a bug that we need to fix.

>    Also, it seems bad that tty interrupts are blocked during processing
>    of lance interrupts.
> 
> That was the whole point of the splnet()/splsoftnet() changes.
> Indeed, I went to some length to explain that.

That's what I *thought* you'd said...   Sigh.

			       _MelloN_