Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 00:16:07 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm) Cc: dillon@apollo.backplane.com (Matthew Dillon), cp@bsdi.com (Chuck Paterson), jkh@zippy.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Preemptive kernel on older X86 hardware Message-ID: <200005270016.RAA23476@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <20000525183213.AE08A1CE1@overcee.netplex.com.au> from "Peter Wemm" at May 25, 2000 11:32:13 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Lets use subroutines during development at least, it will make > > things easier. I don't think anyone can argue with that :-) > > Which is also required for binary kld's. Having two different versions > of kld's - one for SMP and one for UP would be bad. Although I have strategy > to take care of this when the revamped config/build process is finished. > It will be possible to use kernel config-style build parameters for > modules as well. > > For example, building a "GENERIC" module would cause it to make calls to > the mutex subroutines, while some compile option would allow you to make > a tuned SMP-specific kld for your local machine. I would suggest using inlines, but have subroutines available, and compile modules to use the subroutine version. The inlines don't have to be inlines during developement, as you say, they can be macro-wrapped functions. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200005270016.RAA23476>