Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:01:02 GMT From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: PERFORCE change 74277 for review Message-ID: <200504011601.j31G12th059464@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=74277 Change 74277 by jhb@jhb_slimer on 2005/04/01 16:00:01 Update. Affected files ... .. //depot/projects/smpng/sys/notes#32 edit Differences ... ==== //depot/projects/smpng/sys/notes#32 (text+ko) ==== @@ -19,32 +19,31 @@ more realistic since they call functions. However, these clobber updates need to be verified against the actual pc98 code. - Untested - - Oops, '+' is invalid for memory operands it turns out, so revisit the + + Oops, '+' is invalid for memory operands it turns out, so revisit the whole tree to really fix this. Also, fixup atomic ops so that they treat the memory pointed to as an output and don't all clobber "memory", instead, just acquire variants clobber "memory". - + alpha - + amd64 + - Put off the relaxing of memory clobbers to just acquire variants until + later + - alpha + - amd64 - why clobber memory in disable_intr()? - eventually we should not clobber all memory for bus_space, but just the memory we actually touch - + arm + - arm - needs real acq variants to get "memory" clobber - + boot - + contrib - + dev + - dev - drm clobbers memory for write barriers - drm and sym should use bus_space for barriers - gnu - contrib code - + ia64 - + i386 + - ia64 + - i386 - why clobber memory in disable_intr()? - + pc98 - + pci - + powerpc + - pc98 + - powerpc - not sure powerpc_mb() should clobber memory - + sparc64 + - sparc64 - sys - Fixup td_ucred of thread doing execve() to re-sync with process ucred after single threading during an exec.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200504011601.j31G12th059464>