Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:27:15 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> To: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Subject: Re: mp_machdep.c (was Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug reports requested - acpi]) Message-ID: <41505663.40407@cronyx.ru> In-Reply-To: <200409201652.24457.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <41421D6A.8070805@cronyx.ru> <414E7581.2070505@root.org> <414F256B.1030304@cronyx.ru> <200409201652.24457.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My solution works for current so I am going to commit it and MFC after
a while. To be sure that I am not on the wrong way I need some
reviewed/approved signs ;-) I also hope to get one (or more) tested signs.
Patch I plan to commit following patch:
Index: mp_machdep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/i386/mp_machdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.238
diff -u -r1.238 mp_machdep.c
--- mp_machdep.c 1 Sep 2004 06:42:01 -0000 1.238
+++ mp_machdep.c 21 Sep 2004 15:54:41 -0000
@@ -743,10 +743,11 @@
u_int8_t *dst8;
u_int16_t *dst16;
u_int32_t *dst32;
+ vm_offset_t va = (vm_offset_t) dst;
POSTCODE(INSTALL_AP_TRAMP_POST);
- pmap_kenter(boot_address + KERNBASE, boot_address);
+ pmap_map(&va, boot_address, boot_address + size, 0);
for (x = 0; x < size; ++x)
*dst++ = *src++;
Any signs for(or against)?
Thanks!
PS. John: I am against of pmap_kenter/pmap_invalidate_XXX since we could
get
the same problem if we would use atomic functions instead of composite
functions,
which, I hope, will track all changes in the future.
rik
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41505663.40407>