Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 11:34:56 -0400 From: "George Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: "Andriy Gapon" <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-dtrace@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: removing solaris cyclic Message-ID: <49A880FD-F346-4033-A1E5-BA1BB69FD2DA@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <543643A1.6030002@FreeBSD.org> References: <543643A1.6030002@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 9 Oct 2014, at 4:13, Andriy Gapon wrote: > I would like to ask for a review and/or testing of the following branch for a > phased removal of solaris cyclic code: > https://github.com/avg-I/freebsd/compare/review/no-cyclic > Raw diff: https://github.com/avg-I/freebsd/compare/master...review/no-cyclic.diff > > The only user of cyclic now is DTrace profile provider, so I am converting it to > use our improved callout(9). cyclic is almost a complete implementation of an > alternative to our callout(9), so having that big chunk of foreign code which > duplicates a core function is not nice. > > One thing that I am not sure about is what PROF_ARTIFICIAL_FRAMES should be on > different platforms. Also, I am not sure if the number of interrupt, timer, etc > frames depends on a timer being used. I'd appreciate any help on this. Can you create a reviews.freebsd.org patch for this? Thanks, George [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlQ2qyAACgkQYdh2wUQKM9JiAgCfV8TPbKT6kdumjvIyiXgj0zgf 5gIAnirdixA/e3wz8BHtClNGeZlBjSjy =1tVc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49A880FD-F346-4033-A1E5-BA1BB69FD2DA>