Hi Cliff,
A couple of things with these changes:
> Module Name:src
> Committed By: cliff
> Date: Thu Jun 10 00:32:11 UTC 2010
>
> Modified Files:
>
> src/sys/arch/mips/include [matt-nb5-mips64]: locore.h
>
> Log Message:
>
> - add lsw_bus_error to struct locoresw, prov
On May 4, 2010, at 5:30 PM, Simon Burge wrote:
> Matt Thomas wrote:
>
>> Modified Files:
>>
>> src/sys/arch/mips/mips [matt-nb5-mips64]: pmap_segtab.c
>>
>> Log Message:
>>
>> Cleanup segtab allocation. Add some counters to monitor memory usage.
>
> +uint32_t nget_segtab;
> +uint32_t
Matt Thomas wrote:
> Modified Files:
>
> src/sys/arch/mips/mips [matt-nb5-mips64]: pmap_segtab.c
>
> Log Message:
>
> Cleanup segtab allocation. Add some counters to monitor memory usage.
+uint32_t nget_segtab;
+uint32_t nput_segtab;
+uint32_t npage_segtab;
How quickly could these wra
> @@ -225,11 +226,18 @@
> {
> KASSERT(!CPU_IS_PRIMARY(ci));
> KASSERT(ci->ci_data.cpu_idlelwp != NULL);
> + KASSERT(cold);
We should have a more descriptive variable to represent systems global state...
(Define state transition strictly too.)
Masao
--
Masao Uebayashi / Tombi In
[wrong list, redirecting to source-changes-d, sorry...]
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:34:54AM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 07:56:27AM +, Matt Thomas wrote:
> > (slightly bogus but then we really should kill extent and switch to vmem)
>
> I keep hearing this mantra.
>
On Nov 10, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Simon Burge wrote:
Cliff Neighbors wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By: cliff
Date: Mon Nov 9 10:00:02 UTC 2009
Modified Files:
src/sys/arch/mips/mips [matt-nb5-mips64]: db_interface.c
Log Message:
arch/mips/mips/db_interface.c
- add M
Cliff Neighbors wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: cliff
> Date: Mon Nov 9 10:00:02 UTC 2009
>
> Modified Files:
>
> src/sys/arch/mips/mips [matt-nb5-mips64]: db_interface.c
>
> Log Message:
>
> arch/mips/mips/db_interface.c
> - add MIPS64_SHOW32() and MIPS64_SHOW64() m
> Log Message:
> CP0 ECC and CACHE_ERR "not implemented" on RMI XLS, so avoid accessing them
> @@ -508,8 +508,10 @@
>
> if (MIPS_HAS_LLSC) {
> if (CPUISMIPS64) {
> +#if !defined(MIPS64_XLS) /* CP0 reg #17
> "reserved" */
>
> O64 kernel? why should we worry about O64?
For "completeness". :)
Masao
On Sep 2, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
@@ -876,10 +876,17 @@
moves2, t2 # stash most of temporary regs
REG_S t3, FRAME_T3(k1)# syscall saved gp for fork
mfc0a1, MIPS_COP_0_STATUS # 2nd arg is STATUS
> @@ -876,10 +876,17 @@
> moves2, t2 # stash most of temporary regs
> REG_S t3, FRAME_T3(k1)# syscall saved gp for fork
> mfc0a1, MIPS_COP_0_STATUS # 2nd arg is STATUS
> +#if defined(__mips_n32) || defined(__mips_n64)
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
