Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:24:16 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jeff Roberson <jeff@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/sys/sys smp.h src/sys/kern subr_smp.c src/sy Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071421000.42005-100000@beppo> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.020307171639.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Yes, well, the current Alpha ID's do fit this model. :) I think you want > what we already have. If we do end up with an arch which uses 64-bit > phyiscal ID numbers or other such weirdness then it is free to assign > logical ID's as it sees fit. We just happen to use the phyiscal ID for > the virtaul ID on Alpha, i386 (and sparc64 I believe) since they do fit > these requirements. > > Does that make sense? I'm not say we need to support some wildly sparse > range, but we shouldn't assume 0 and 1 for any dual CPU system. The latter certainly. I would like everyone to assume a sparse space. After all, under the current implementation, the first CPU for an Alpha 8200 is at ID 8, not 0. As far as the rest- fair enough, I suppose. But as long as you just keep the notion that these are phyical IDs, then people will make (IMO) unwarranted assumptions about this over time, and as soon as you *get* a platform that doesn't fit this, you're in trouble. -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071421000.42005-100000>