On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Christos Zoulas <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 6, 1:55pm, [email protected] (Ryota Ozaki) wrote: > -- Subject: Re: Porting DTrace to ARM > > | On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Matt Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > | > > | > On Mar 5, 2014, at 8:25 PM, Ryota Ozaki <[email protected]> wrote: > | > > | >> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Matt Thomas <[email protected]> > wrote: > | >>> > | >>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Ryota Ozaki <[email protected]> wrote: > | >>> > | >>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:39 AM, Matt Thomas <[email protected]> > wrote: > | >>>>> > | >>>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Ryota Ozaki <[email protected]> wrote: > | >>>>> > | >>>>>> - Replace cpu_id with cpuid in sys/arch/arm > | >>>>>> - Can I commit the change? > | >>>>> > | >>>>> Why? It's just churn for no reason I can see. > | >>>> > | >>>> The background is that cpu_id in sys/arch/arm conflicts with > | >>>> the code in cddl and we have to change either one. I and christos > | >>>> (he already replied in another mail) decided to change > | >>>> sys/arch/arm, which seems less pain. > | >>> > | >>> The problem is that all the functions in cpufunc.h are cpu_xxx > | >>> cpuid would be an outlier. > | >>> > | >>> I think a better solution might be to put a field for dtrace > | >>> into cpu_data and just curcpu()->ci_dtraceinfo->foo > | >>> to get to it instead have a parallel structure. > | >>> > | >>> You want to put a dtrace in mi_attach_cpu to initialize/allocate it. > | >> > | >> Sounds reasonable (except that it needs to modify cddl much though). > | >> Can we do attach_cpu in a module? > | > > | > Too late for the most part. > | > | # oh, mi_attach_cpu is correct. I found it now :) > | > | Okay, so we need to have some code in src/sys. Hmm, big change > | (for me). I can do it, but I don't know if it's ok or not. > | > | Christos, how do you think? > > It is probably easier to change cddl at this point or make cpu_id() an inline.
Well...I found that -current now doesn't require cpu_id tweaks for both arch/arm and dtrace anymore. I guess changes in arch/arm headers during my development solved the problem without realizing. So I think we can postpone per-cpu data improvement after works for arm finish. I'm listing the per-cpu work in my todo. Regards, ozaki-r
