Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 17:40:14 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: George Neville-Neil <gnn@neville-neil.com> Cc: freebsd-dtrace@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: removing solaris cyclic Message-ID: <5466225E.2050902@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <49A880FD-F346-4033-A1E5-BA1BB69FD2DA@neville-neil.com> References: <543643A1.6030002@FreeBSD.org> <49A880FD-F346-4033-A1E5-BA1BB69FD2DA@neville-neil.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/10/2014 18:34, George Neville-Neil wrote: > 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? Done: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1161 -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5466225E.2050902>