Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 09:39:57 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Zbyszek Bodek <zbb@semihalf.com> Cc: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RFC: Patches with AXP support and pmap&smp fixes. Message-ID: <1367509197.1180.120.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <51828513.9000406@semihalf.com> References: <517E8610.5050204@semihalf.com> <1367338875.1180.44.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <51828513.9000406@semihalf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 17:24 +0200, Zbyszek Bodek wrote: > On 30.04.2013 18:21, Ian Lepore wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 16:39 +0200, Grzegorz Bernacki wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I am going to submit some changes related to Armada XP support and some > >> general ARM fixes. You can find them at: > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~gber/armada > >> > >> It would be good if someone could review changes in generic ARM code i.e.: > >> 1) > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~gber/armada/0004-arm-smp-Fix-AP-processors-initialization-procedure.patch > >> > >> This patch fixes race condition in pcpu_init function. pcpu_init > >> performs operation on signly-linked tail queue and the queue can be > >> corrupted by secondary cpus initialization. > >> > >> 2) > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~gber/armada/0007-arm-Fix-L2-PTE-access-permissions-management.patch > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~gber/armada/0008-arm-Fix-page-reference-emulation-on-ARMv6-and-v7.patch > >> > >> These are changes which fixes reference simulation and access > >> permissions in pmap v6. > >> > >> It would be great if you could also review armada patches. > >> We will appreciate all comments and remarks. If there will be no > >> objections I am going to submit these changes at the beginning of the > >> next week. > >> > >> thanks, > >> greg > > > > I've reviewed them, and see no problems. It might not be a bad idea to > > paste the protections truth table from the commit message as a comment > > block in pmap_set_prot(); I had to keep referring to it while convincing > > myself the changes were right for every path through the routine. > > > > -- Ian > > > > Hello Ian, > > Sure, we will add suggested comment to the code. > But would it not be better to place it in the pmap.h file > just before L2_S_PROT_R, L2_S_PROT_U, etc. definitions. > Please notice that the similar to pmap_set_prot() protections setting > sequence is also used in pmap_enter_locked(). > > What is your opinion? > > Best regards > Zbyszek Bodek > Yes, I think it does make more sense to put the comment block near where the constants are defined. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1367509197.1180.120.camel>