Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:40:41 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: freebsd-mips@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] update sf_buf and uio for n64 Message-ID: <4D3F0B19.4060907@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik%2BpMOxCaD70oZJPsmKa4mNCviZmzLhxe8wQR-y@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTik%2BpMOxCaD70oZJPsmKa4mNCviZmzLhxe8wQR-y@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/25/2011 06:48, Jayachandran C. wrote: > This is one of the remaining pieces in n64 work from Juli's octeon > branch. The attached patch updates the sf_buf code and uio_machdep.c > in n64 compilation to use direct mapping. > > Planning to check this in later this week, if there are no objections. > > JC. > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-mips@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-mips > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-mips-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" I really like the uio_machdep.c. I think it is good and can go in without further objection. I like the idea of the n64 direct mapping of the sbufs. That's a good optimization. I get nervous when I see some code implemented in one place on one ifdef branch, and in a completely different file for another. Is the gain in efficiency sufficient to justify this odd split? If not, then having all the code in vm_machdep.c might make more sense. If the gain is enough, then having a comment in vm_machdep.c pointing to sf_buf.h would be good to have as well... (that's assuming the simplifications suggested by Andrew Duane don't change the code distribution). Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D3F0B19.4060907>