Re: splimp()

Robert Watson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> 
>> Barney Cordoba wrote:
>>> I'm porting some older software to 7.0 and I see that many of the 7.0 
>>> drivers use both locks and splimps() to protect code, particularly 
>>> the firewire driver. What cases would an splimp() be required?
>>
>> spl*() are NOPs that are only left behind in some code as a reminder 
>> of what mutual exclusion protections used to apply, mostly in cases 
>> where there has not been fine-grained locking applied to the code in 
>> question.  In some (most?) cases they serve no useful annotation 
>> purpose and should just be removed.  For newly written code they 
>> should be added.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you meant "should not be added" :-).

Er yes ;)

Kris