On Mon Jun 23 12:22:23 EDT 2014, p...@fb.com wrote:
> Yes I agree, it's better that way. Is there a list somewhere on the web with
> all
> those 9atom patches?
>
9fs atom
then look in /n/atom/patch, or /n/atom/patch/applied, or
/n/atom/patch/applied$year.
- erik
ps.
for 9fs
case atom
Yes I agree, it's better that way. Is there a list somewhere on the web with all
those 9atom patches?
On Jun 22, 2014, at 5:57 PM, erik quanstrom
wrote:
>> On 22 June 2014 23:25, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
>>
>>> if(up != p && (p->wired == nil || p->wired == MACHP(m->machno))
>>> m->readied = p
if(up != p && (p->wired == nil || p->wired->machno == m->machno))
dereferencing p->wired can fault when another processor rewires the
proc temporarily setting p->wired to nil.
--
cinap
> On 22 June 2014 23:25, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
>
> > if(up != p && (p->wired == nil || p->wired == MACHP(m->machno))
> >m->readied = p;
> >
>
> yes, because on 386 m is effectively a constant. the code was written with
> extern register Mach *m in mind.
>
9atom has had it as
if(
On 22 June 2014 23:25, Yoann Padioleau wrote:
> if(up != p && (p->wired == nil || p->wired == MACHP(m->machno))
>m->readied = p;
>
yes, because on 386 m is effectively a constant. the code was written with
extern register Mach *m in mind.
correct. :-)
--
cinap
The code should be
if(up != p && (p->wired == nil || p->wired == MACHP(m->machno))
m->readied = p;
no?
>
> if(up != p && (p->wired == nil || p->wired == m))
> m->readied = p; /* group scheduling */
On Jun 22, 2014, at 10:20 AM, yoann padioleau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Looking at th
