On 22-Jun-01 Bosko Milekic wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:35:32AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> On 22-Jun-01 Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>> > * Alexander N. Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010622 10:46] wrote:
>> >> UP kernel can not be compiled in -CURRENT after your changes because
>> >> ke
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:32:21PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> > mp_ncpus implies SMP (mp_ prefix). If you want to make it ncpus and move it to
> > sys/systm.h and stick it somewhere MI initialized to 1 that is fine. Then
> > hw.ncpus can reference that (well, it's called hw.ncpu right now, p
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 10:35:32AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 22-Jun-01 Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * Alexander N. Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010622 10:46] wrote:
> >> UP kernel can not be compiled in -CURRENT after your changes because
> >> kern/subr_mbuf.c references mp_ncpus variable,
On 22-Jun-01 Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Alexander N. Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010622 10:46] wrote:
>> UP kernel can not be compiled in -CURRENT after your changes because
>> kern/subr_mbuf.c references mp_ncpus variable, which is defined only in SMP
>> case. Should this variable be moved out
* Alexander N. Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010622 10:46] wrote:
> UP kernel can not be compiled in -CURRENT after your changes because
> kern/subr_mbuf.c references mp_ncpus variable, which is defined only in SMP
> case. Should this variable be moved out of #ifdef SMP?
Yes, I asked for this month
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:52:01AM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> If you want accurate stats you should be able to lock the per-cpu
> stats areas all at once as long as you always do it in a certain
> order, basically, lock CPU 0, then 1, then 2, then 3, sum then
> unlock. If correctness doesn
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 08:51:55AM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> I would think not.
>
> Bosko might be gone now. I'll look at this as soon as a CVS update continues.
>
> It's odd, though. A GENERIC kernel built for me yesterday w/o problems.
Nah, don't worry. I'm still here (and pla
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 11:45:50AM -0400, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote:
> UP kernel can not be compiled in -CURRENT after your changes because
> kern/subr_mbuf.c references mp_ncpus variable, which is defined only in SMP
> case. Should this variable be moved out of #ifdef SMP?
It turns out
I would think not.
Bosko might be gone now. I'll look at this as soon as a CVS update continues.
It's odd, though. A GENERIC kernel built for me yesterday w/o problems.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote:
> UP kernel can not be compiled in -CURRENT after your changes because
> k
UP kernel can not be compiled in -CURRENT after your changes because
kern/subr_mbuf.c references mp_ncpus variable, which is defined only in SMP
case. Should this variable be moved out of #ifdef SMP?
On 22-Jun-2001 Bosko Milekic wrote:
>
> Hi -current people,
>
> I have recently made som
* Bosko Milekic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010622 01:47] wrote:
>
> Hi -current people,
>
> I have recently made some significant changes to the mbuf allocator.
> Although I have invested, along with several other developers, very significant
> time in testing the newly introduced code, should a
11 matches
Mail list logo