Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:39:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> 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: <200108222039.f7MKdeW78135@earth.backplane.com> References: <20010823060618.M15348-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> 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
Look, I don't want to get into a big argument. It makes sense to
keep them together because they are related, and even though our
existing platforms do not appear to need them I can see that changing
in the future as we add more platform ports to the system. For example,
having the pager range accessible could be advantageous for platforms
that take TLB faults.
-Matt
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?200108222039.f7MKdeW78135>