Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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-alpha" 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>