Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 16:05:01 -0500 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: <BD16B946-5161-4755-A9D3-4199554450C0@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <5466225E.2050902@FreeBSD.org> References: <543643A1.6030002@FreeBSD.org> <49A880FD-F346-4033-A1E5-BA1BB69FD2DA@neville-neil.com> <5466225E.2050902@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14 Nov 2014, at 10:40, Andriy Gapon wrote: > 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 > Yup, reviewed. I'm hoping at least one other person on that review lists comments and if it's OK then commit it. Best, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BD16B946-5161-4755-A9D3-4199554450C0>