From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 27 00:49:16 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABEFF16A4E5; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:49:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dong.ci0.org (cognet.ci0.org [80.65.224.102]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C68A43D39; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:49:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from doginou@dong.ci0.org) Received: from dong.ci0.org (localhost.ci0.org [127.0.0.1]) by dong.ci0.org (8.13.1/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1R0ro7C033735; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:53:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from doginou@dong.ci0.org) Received: (from doginou@localhost) by dong.ci0.org (8.13.1/8.12.11/Submit) id j1R0ro9g033734; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:53:50 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from doginou) Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:53:50 +0100 From: Olivier Houchard To: David Xu Message-ID: <20050227005350.GA33699@ci0.org> References: <200502261859.j1QIx1fL008419@repoman.freebsd.org> <422116F0.7030604@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <422116F0.7030604@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/arm/include machdep.h pmap.h sysarch.h src/sys/arm/arm cpufunc_asm.S genassym.c machdep.c pmap.c swtch.S src/sys/arm/xscale std.xscale src/sys/arm/xscale/i80321 std.i80321 X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 00:49:16 -0000 On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 08:40:16AM +0800, David Xu wrote: > I am thinking why you can finish the task in such short time. :=) > > Should sysarch(ARM_SET_TP,...) write the thread pointer to > ARM_TP_ADDRESS now not just remembers it or did I miss > something ? > > David Xu > Well I didn't really thought about it yet, but the sysarch() mechanism lost its interest now, I was just pondering keeping it to provide a costly but working way to handle the tp in the unlikely situation where someone would want to do that on a SMP system with CPUs that can't lock cache line. I have nothing aginst ARM_SET_TP changing ARM_TP_ADDRESS, but it doesn't matter much since userland tools can mess with ARM_TP_ADDRESS directly. Cheers, Olivier