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? ozaki-r
