From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ronald G Minnich To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] IRQs again... In-Reply-To: <438ad8f565831fbb21a2cd36862b152c@plan9.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:41:25 -0600 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9d89cf68-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, 27 May 2002 jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote: > We've been there and done that, both running the Plan 9 code base > on hot-plug systems and using a Plan 9 kernel as the boot ROM (is it > really almost 10 years ago?). Everybody has. I did it 25 years ago on all kinds of stuff, with all kinds of OSes, some Unix, some not. I don't think our past successes, however impressive, are the issue here. Having the OS config interrupts is old news. So we don't need (I think) to discuss how we all did it, unless the result is a chunk of code in the same email. It's just not productive. The issue is, that we need to do it now on stupid PC hardware, with stupid M$-designed "$PIR" tables and stupid broken PC chipsets. My first pass through 4e source shows there are lots of problems with how plan9 is doing it and that's what we're trying to figure out. We've fixed one or two things but we're still chasing all the problems. Linux gets it right, and plan9 doesn't, and that bothers me quite a bit. I want Plan 9 to be as good as Linux in this area. I hope that is a shared goal. > Before you flashed LinuxBIOS on the motherboard, is it likely Plan 9 > would have booted? Sure, on the one board it does, but that fact has not been terribly helpful, esp. as it seems plan9 did not always configure things right even under the BIOS -- these BIOSes do amazingly confusing things for good OSes to get mixed up by. ron