From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 6 20:47:52 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 4466E16A406; Sun, 6 May 2007 20:47:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: perforce@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: perforce@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160DE16A400; Sun, 6 May 2007 20:47:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@fnop.net) Received: from core.fnop.net (mx.fnop.net [82.102.11.82]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A3013C44C; Sun, 6 May 2007 20:47:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@fnop.net) Received: from core.fnop.net (mx.fnop.net [82.102.11.82]) by core.fnop.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3144E69057F; Sun, 6 May 2007 21:48:09 +0100 (WEST) Received: by core.fnop.net (Postfix, from userid 1015) id E5C57690680; Sun, 6 May 2007 21:48:08 +0100 (WEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on core.fnop.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.1.7 Received: from epsilon.local.fnop.net (unknown [83.144.140.52]) by core.fnop.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE85269057F; Sun, 6 May 2007 21:48:07 +0100 (WEST) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 21:47:45 +0100 Message-ID: <86irb51xxq.wl%rpaulo@fnop.net> From: Rui Paulo To: attilio@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <463EACD7.8000905@FreeBSD.org> References: <200705062022.l46KMIud093057@repoman.freebsd.org> <463EACD7.8000905@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Cc: Perforce Change Reviews , Rui Paulo Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 119366 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 20:47:52 -0000 At Mon, 07 May 2007 06:36:39 +0200, Attilio Rao wrote: > > Being more specific, you don't need lock at all there. > wrmsr/cpuid are atomic. So you don't need to hang at all there. What about rdmsr ?