From owner-svn-src-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 11 22:05:38 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16037106566C for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 22:05:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marius@alchemy.franken.de) Received: from alchemy.franken.de (alchemy.franken.de [194.94.249.214]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A630D8FC08 for ; Wed, 11 May 2011 22:05:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alchemy.franken.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alchemy.franken.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/ALCHEMY.FRANKEN.DE) with ESMTP id p4BLoJv2041668; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:50:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from marius@alchemy.franken.de) Received: (from marius@localhost) by alchemy.franken.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p4BLoJ1D041667; Wed, 11 May 2011 23:50:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from marius) Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 23:50:19 +0200 From: Marius Strobl To: Attilio Rao Message-ID: <20110511215019.GU92688@alchemy.franken.de> References: <201105112115.p4BLFCGW006442@svn.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r221791 - projects/largeSMP/sys/sparc64/include X-BeenThere: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the src " projects" tree" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 22:05:38 -0000 On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:28:33PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2011/5/11 Marius Strobl : > > Author: marius > > Date: Wed May 11 21:15:12 2011 > > New Revision: 221791 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/221791 > > Thanks a lot for your commit. > I see you didn't commit yet the mp_machdep part, is that any problem with it? Given that I currently don't understand how the remaining problems I'm seeing with largeSMP actually can happen I'm just using the hack of just changing the 32-bit assembler instructions into 64-bit ones assuming that _NCPUWORDS is 1 for now as I described earlier. So the properly converted mp_exception.S isn't really tested so far, which is why I haven't commited it, yet, if that's what you meant by mp_machdep part. Marius