Jean-Yves Migeon jeanyves.mig...@free.fr wrote:
Agree with David's point, but it should not be done at function level.
Rather higher level interface abstraction. In uvmplock branch, I have
already split some x86 pmap bits into pmap_tlb.c and xen_pmap.c modules.
More interfaces can be
Jean-Yves Migeon jeanyves.mig...@free.fr wrote:
As I have yet to understand the inner workings of emap, I'd like to know
if it is possible to wrap i386_cpu_switch_pmap() around uvm_emap
functions, like this:
[...]
u_int gen = uvm_emap_gen_return();
i386_cpu_switch_pmap(pmap);
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 07:45:32PM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
For convenience, here's i386_cpu_switch_pmap:
I know that a lot of legacy code uses the preprocessor the way that you
have in i386_cpu_switch_pmap(), but I don't think that the preprocessor
should be used in that way any longer.
On 20.06.2010 22:19, David Young wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 07:45:32PM +0200, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
For convenience, here's i386_cpu_switch_pmap:
I know that a lot of legacy code uses the preprocessor the way that you
have in i386_cpu_switch_pmap(), but I don't think that the
On 20.06.2010 20:00, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Jean-Yves Migeonjeanyves.mig...@free.fr wrote:
As I have yet to understand the inner workings of emap, I'd like to know
if it is possible to wrap i386_cpu_switch_pmap() around uvm_emap
functions, like this:
[...]
u_int gen =
Jean-Yves Migeon jeanyves.mig...@free.fr wrote:
I know that a lot of legacy code uses the preprocessor the way that you
have in i386_cpu_switch_pmap(), but I don't think that the preprocessor
should be used in that way any longer. In my experience, code that uses
the preprocessor
On 21.06.2010 00:39, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
Jean-Yves Migeonjeanyves.mig...@free.fr wrote:
I know that a lot of legacy code uses the preprocessor the way that you
have in i386_cpu_switch_pmap(), but I don't think that the preprocessor
should be used in that way any longer. In my
