Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 08:03:11 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "Jung-uk Kim" <jkim@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r216634 - in head/sys/amd64: amd64 ia32 include linux32 Message-ID: <201012220803.12023.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201012220018.oBM0IgOg079632@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201012220018.oBM0IgOg079632@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, December 21, 2010 7:18:42 pm Jung-uk Kim wrote: > Author: jkim > Date: Wed Dec 22 00:18:42 2010 > New Revision: 216634 > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/216634 > > Log: > Improve PCB flags handling and make it more robust. Add two new functions > for manipulating pcb_flags. These inline functions are very similar to > atomic_set_char(9) and atomic_clear_char(9) but without unnecessary LOCK > prefix for SMP. Add comments about the rationale[1]. Use these functions > wherever possible. Although there are some places where it is not strictly > necessary (e.g., a PCB is copied to create a new PCB), it is done across > the board for sake of consistency. Turn pcb_full_iret into a PCB flag as > it is safe now. Move rarely used fields before pcb_flags and reduce size > of pcb_flags to one byte. Fix some style(9) nits in pcb.h while I am in > the neighborhood. > > Reviewed by: kib > Submitted by: kib[1] > MFC after: 2 months Is there really a need to have the flags field be a char instead of an int or long? It seems to me that flags fields in general should be an int unless there is a strong need otherwise (e.g. hardware-defined flag). 'orl' will work just as well as 'orb'. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201012220803.12023.jhb>