From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 21 22:17:18 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E191065670; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:17:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F6D8FC15; Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:17:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.topspin.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id BAA03191; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:17:15 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.topspin.kiev.ua ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.topspin.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1OQpIp-000Mxu-0y; Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:17:15 +0300 Message-ID: <4C1FE4E9.8080400@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 01:17:13 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100603) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Navdeep Parhar , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org References: <4C1F798C.7010204@freebsd.org> <201006211143.26459.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C1F8BDD.9010408@freebsd.org> <201006211610.45811.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100621204435.GA98177@hub.freebsd.org> <4C1FDAF9.3080808@freebsd.org> <20100621220035.GA8746@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20100621220035.GA8746@hub.freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 23:06:58 +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: amd64 kernel modules: mapping sections to addresses X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:17:18 -0000 on 22/06/2010 01:00 Navdeep Parhar said the following: > > I'm not so sure about this. There is code inside the second switch that runs > whether sh_size is 0 or not. Either all of it is pointless code (when sh_size > is 0) or or you'll make sure that it still runs, right? It's definitely pointless. [IMHO :-)] -- Andriy Gapon