Cool. Thanks. I'll rip it out of modules builds for alpha then- it'll save
some time in kernel rebuilds.
On 19 Jul 2001, Sudish Joseph wrote:
> Matthew Jacob writes:
> > Actually, to be fair, we'd have to consider all the kernel subsystems that
> > have *not* in fact been tested on alpha. The d
Matthew Jacob writes:
> Actually, to be fair, we'd have to consider all the kernel subsystems that
> have *not* in fact been tested on alpha. The dozens of warnings from NetGraph
> or CODA code indicate that there might be problems there, for instance.
NetGraph certainly has some 32-bit asssumpti
>
> It is very rare that the alpha port is broken as you describe. Sometimes
> a bug will have a different affect on the alpha than on x86, but except
> for bugs in sys/alpha that x86'ers won't be committing, very few of the bugs
> break just the alpha and not the x86 as well.
Generally this is
On 19-Jul-01 Terry Lambert wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > A "shakedown cruise" could end up being very rough... you
>> > would effectively need to check an "unaligned access in
>> > kernel is OK" flag in many of these instances, and fall back
>> > to doing the copy when it was false.
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > A "shakedown cruise" could end up being very rough... you
> > would effectively need to check an "unaligned access in
> > kernel is OK" flag in many of these instances, and fall back
> > to doing the copy when it was false.
>
> ...therefore - never mind.
> Perhaps som
John Baldwin wrote:
> > Also note that this will play hell with some of the recent
> > copy avoidance changes made by Bill Paul to the ethernet
> > drivers, to avoid the expense of copying the packet, with
> > the knowledge that there would be an increased overhead in
> > the resulting packet fiel
On 18-Jul-01 Terry Lambert wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> >> Actually, since the 486, it's been possible for us to turn on unaligned
>> >> access exceptions on the x86. We should probably consider doing this, to
>> >> ensure better performance, and to avoid the unnecessary bus overhead we
>> >>
On 18-Jul-01 Terry Lambert wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>> It's the AC bit in eflags.
>
> Note that this will not trap 64 bit unaligned accesses, only 32.
And only at pl 3...
> Also note that this will play hell with some of the recent
> copy avoidance changes made by Bill Paul to the ethernet
John Baldwin wrote:
> >> Actually, since the 486, it's been possible for us to turn on unaligned
> >> access exceptions on the x86. We should probably consider doing this, to
> >> ensure better performance, and to avoid the unnecessary bus overhead we
> >> eat for unaligned access today... not to
On 17-Jul-01 Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, since the 486, it's been possible for us to turn on unaligned
>> access exceptions on the x86. We should probably consider doing this, to
>> ensure better performance, and to avoid the unnecessary bus overhead we
>> eat for unaligned access to
> Actually, since the 486, it's been possible for us to turn on unaligned
> access exceptions on the x86. We should probably consider doing this, to
> ensure better performance, and to avoid the unnecessary bus overhead we
> eat for unaligned access today... not to mention how it could shake ou
11 matches
Mail list logo
