Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 17:24:03 +0200 From: Zbyszek Bodek <zbb@semihalf.com> To: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RFC: Patches with AXP support and pmap&smp fixes. Message-ID: <51828513.9000406@semihalf.com> In-Reply-To: <1367338875.1180.44.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <517E8610.5050204@semihalf.com> <1367338875.1180.44.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51828513.9000406>