Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 17:58:12 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/i386 dump_machdep.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0212161757320.11938-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20021217005342.GA27317@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 03:19:12PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > Functionally, it is important that this check be MI. > > > > I thought about that. > > Different architectures can have different dump sizes (theoretically) > > so only the MD code can know how much room it needs. > > For example, ia64 might decide to implement sparse dumps. > > Different architectures already have different dump sizes, because > both ia64 and sparc64 have sparse memory dumps and each has overhead > to keep track of the memory chunks. ia64 uses ELF as the container, > sparc64 has something else. > > So, yes; the check has to be MD. So who knows each architecture to know how the check should be done on those architgectures? > > -- > Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net > 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.4.21.0212161757320.11938-100000>