On Monday, November 21, 2016 12:50:35 PM Warner Losh wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:07 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Saturday, November 19, 2016 09:46:13 PM Warner Losh wrote: > >> Author: imp > >> Date: Sat Nov 19 21:46:13 2016 > >> New Revision: 308869 > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/308869 > >> > >> Log: > >> i386 turns out to not have __uint128_t. So confusingly use 64-bit math > >> instead. Since we're little endian, we can get away with it. Also, > >> since the counters in quesitons would require billions of iops for > >> tens of billions of seconds to overflow, and since such data rates are > >> unlikely for people using i386 for a while, that's OK. The fastest > >> cards today can't do even a million IOPs. > >> > >> Noticed by: dim@ > >> Sponsored by: Netflix, Inc > > > > It probably has it if you compile with -march=<foo> where <foo> is new > > enough to have SSE. > > Yea, but this solution was good enough... There's also a lot of issues > with 128bit ints in different versions of gcc and I didn't want to > play the whack-a-mole game, so I punted.
Yes. We don't require SSE for i386, so we're stuck handling the non-SSE case currently. > > Is nvme inherently x86-only? > > No. However, the implementation was done by Intel, only tested on x86 > and has known issues with endian-ness. So we build only on x86. Something of a shame as you can probably shove one of these boards in arm64 servers. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
