[Bug translator/1276] support more timer varieties

[Stone, Joshua I]

Roland McGrath wrote:
> What this really means is that "current" always works, it's just not
> always useful to think about that task.  i.e., in an interrupt
> handler, the interrupt has nothing necessarily to do with the task
> that was current at the time of the interrupt.  I'm fairly sure that
> "current" never yields garbage, or even a task that isn't exactly the
> one that was on the CPU running process-mode code last.

That is my understanding as well... the pointer is always valid, it just
doesn't pertain to the interrupt itself.


Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> If it doesn't scare you off, then let's have a volunteer try disarming
> some of those in_interrupt() conditionals (maybe replacing them with a
> quick NULL or other simple pointer validity check), and write a few
> stress tests (probes in uncomfortable spots for "current" usage).

I'll volunteer for this (though others are welcome as well).  Have any
suggested probe points that are particularly uncomfortable?


Josh