percpu(9) might help?
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Ryota Ozaki <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
