On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:46:05 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 29 May 2014 14:29, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:09:05 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> On 29 May 2014 13:18, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > >> >> anyway. Besides all of this - I'm thinking of just introducing: > >> >> > >> >> typedef uint32_t cpuid_t; > >> >> > >> >> .. then once we've converted all the users, we can make NOCPU > >> >> something other than 255 (which is the other limiting factor here..) > >> >> > >> >> Any objections? > >> > > >> > This one is a bit harder as you'll have to do shims for kinfo_proc, but > >> > I think this is fine. You could also just use u_int, but a new foo_t > >> > isn't that bad I guess. > >> > >> I don't think I'd modify any userland-facing ABI/KBI's just yet. I'm > >> just worried that 11.0-REL will come out before we have made a decent > >> inroads into this and we _can't_ support > 254 CPUs. > > > > Eh, that's one of the biggies to do actually. Kind of pointless to > > update td_oncpu/lastcpu and not fix kinfo_proc at the same time. You'll > > just have to add new int fields and populate the old ones with sane values > > for CPUs < 255. > > Ugh. Ok. I was too deep in the trenches of device drivers and other > ancillary things doing bad things to char/short with cpu ids when > walking things. I totally missed kinfo_proc. > > I'll go think about it a bit more.
It shouldn't be too hard to to handle kinfo_proc. pf is another case. It might be nice to have a way to auto-compute the right number of bits to reserve based on MAXCPU. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"