From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 14 14:49:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id F105537B405; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C2137B401 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail14.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510FD43FA3 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:49:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 26952 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2003 21:49:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 14 Jul 2003 21:49:40 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6ELnXGI017956; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:49:35 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1058006399.1464.52.camel@leguin> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 17:49:49 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Eric Anholt cc: Perforce Change Reviews cc: Peter Wemm Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 33663 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:49:44 -0000 On 12-Jul-2003 Eric Anholt wrote: > On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 10:57, John Baldwin wrote: >> On 25-Jun-2003 Peter Wemm wrote: >> > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=33663 >> > >> > Change 33663 by peter@peter_hammer on 2003/06/25 15:05:09 >> > >> > Port sym to amd64 >> >> This is possibly not correct. Do all hammer's support the P3+ >> SFENCE and related instructions? Even i386 should probably be >> using what bus_space_barrier() uses. Heck, sym should probably >> just be using bus_space_barrier anyways. > > It would sure be nice to have an MI call for the bus_space_barrier() > calls that don't need a bus_space_tag. The DRM unfortunately doesn't > (and won't ever, I think) do bus_space, so we have to have > platform-specific ifdefs for read, write, and read/write barriers. For simple memory barriers, you can probably get by with atomic(9) operations coupled with appropriate membars. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/