https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=222234
--- Comment #9 from Mark Millard <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Emmanuel Vadot from comment #8) I'll have to build a debug kernel and try using it. (It will be later today before I get to that.) Likely I'll test as of -r337400 since that is my established context overall and is well after -r324207 . As for identcpu.c 's example, I've been running with it patched --but only because the ARM documentation indicated to always have the dsb. I do not know what an expected observational difference would be for the two code variants. All I can say is that having it did not seem to hurt anything in any obvious way. Is there someone around that might know if there is a reason that identcpu.c does not need the instruction, despite what I read? Should it be updated based just one what arm documents, even if no observational difference is known? I leave the judgments to you but likely will keep the patch in place if the file is not updated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
