Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 06:22:35 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Jake Burkholder <jake@k7.locore.ca>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, <freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG>, <freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Preliminary proposed rollup of kernel submap initialization code Message-ID: <20010823060618.M15348-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200108221954.f7MJsbd77448@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Matt Dillon wrote: > :I prefer keeping the variables separate like they used to be. There is > :even less need for them to be combined in a struct than there used to be, > :since centralizing the their initializations ensures that they are the same > :for all arches. > > All the fields are related. They belong in a structure rather then > as free globals or free statics. And it makes it easier for the MD > code to call the MI code. My opinion, anyway. Actually, they are even less related than at first appearance. buffer_sva, buffer_eva, pager_sva and pager_eva aren't really used. They are just places for throwing away the values returned indirectly by kmem_suballoc(). clean_sva and clean_eva are used in one place in pmap.c. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010823060618.M15348-100000>