Ugh. Can we please stop making these hacky one-offs in "shared by all PowerPC
platforms" code? This actually points to a deeper problem in the pmap code
that needs to be addressed correctly.
> On Apr 1, 2021, at 3:02 PM, Michael Lorenz wrote:
>
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: macallan
>
On Mon, 13 May 2013 00:12:01 +
"Michael Lorenz" wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: macallan
> Date: Mon May 13 00:12:01 UTC 2013
>
> Modified Files:
> src/sys/arch/powerpc/oea: ofwoea_machdep.c
>
> Log Message:
> more G5 stuff:
> - call OF_quiesce()
> - properly map th
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:41:55PM +, David Laight wrote:
> > Indeed. Properly speaking though, headers that are exported to
> > userland should define only the precise symbols that userland needs;
> > kernel-only material should be kept elsewhere.
>
> One start would be to add a sys/proc
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:34:40PM +, David Holland wrote:
> (moving this to tech-kern because it's the right place and per request)
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:24:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > > Every header file should include the things it requires to compile.
> > > Therefore,
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 05:41:14AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:20:46AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > Another thing:
> >
> > - We should provide sysconf() for kernel modules (device drivers) too,
> > otherwise we have to expose unnecessary symbols (uvmexp).
>
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:20:46AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> Another thing:
>
> - We should provide sysconf() for kernel modules (device drivers) too,
> otherwise we have to expose unnecessary symbols (uvmexp).
Why not the complete sysctl tree?
--
David A. Holland
dholl...@netbsd.or
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:24:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 05:52:51AM +, David Holland wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > > XXX What is the conclusion about direct vs. indirect #include from
> > headers?
> >
> > Eve
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:41 PM, David Laight wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:50:34AM +, David Holland wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:48:29PM +0900, SODA Noriyuki wrote:
>> > Well, there is another thing which has to be considered. That is
>> > name space pollution.
>> > Hea
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:50:34AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:48:29PM +0900, SODA Noriyuki wrote:
> > Well, there is another thing which has to be considered. That is
> > name space pollution.
> > Header files which are exported to userland (for userland visible AP
(moving this to tech-kern because it's the right place and per request)
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:24:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > Every header file should include the things it requires to compile.
> > Therefore, there should in principle be no cases where a header file
> > (or sourc
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:48:29PM +0900, SODA Noriyuki wrote:
> Well, there is another thing which has to be considered. That is
> name space pollution.
> Header files which are exported to userland (for userland visible APIs)
> should not export random symbols. Only symbols which are define
On Nov,Monday 15 2010, at 7:16 AM, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:24:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 05:52:51AM +, David Holland wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
XXX What is the conclusion about d
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:24:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 05:52:51AM +, David Holland wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > > XXX What is the conclusion about direct vs. indirect #include from
> > headers?
> >
> > Eve
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 05:52:51 +,
David Holland said:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> XXX What is the conclusion about direct vs. indirect #include from headers?
>
> Every header file should include the things it requires to compile.
> Theref
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:24:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 05:52:51AM +, David Holland wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > > XXX What is the conclusion about direct vs. indirect #include from
> > headers?
> >
> > Eve
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 05:52:51AM +, David Holland wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> > XXX What is the conclusion about direct vs. indirect #include from headers?
>
> Every header file should include the things it requires to compile.
> Therefore, th
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> XXX What is the conclusion about direct vs. indirect #include from headers?
Every header file should include the things it requires to compile.
Therefore, there should in principle be no cases where a header file
(or source file)
17 matches
Mail list logo
