Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 14:37:23 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: "Jacques A . Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>, Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004251422340.5133-100000@alphplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200004241609.JAA11108@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2000 at 09:27:04AM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > Are all modules effected, or only those that use certain interfaces? > > Given that this is a change in splxxx() I suspect that it breaks > most modules, but probably not all modules. A quick grep -l spl * | wc Given that this is a change in the splxxx() implementation, it breaks zero modules. splxxx() was changed from an inline function to an ordinary function when SMP development started, to give the same ABI for the SMP case as for the non-SMP case. This gives the same ABI for different SMP implementations as a side effect. I've thought of bringing back some of the spl inlines. The module ABI problem can be handled in the same way as in <machine/atomic.h> -- use ordinary functions for modules. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0004251422340.5133-100000>