On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 10:42 +0000, Attilio Rao wrote: > On 11/1/12, Gleb Smirnoff <gleb...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 06:33:51PM +0000, Attilio Rao wrote: > > A> > Doesn't this padding to cache line size only help x86 processors in an > > A> > SMP kernel? I was expecting to see some #ifdef SMP so that we don't > > pay > > A> > a big price for no gain in small-memory ARM systems and such. But > > maybe > > A> > I'm misunderstanding the reason for the padding. > > A> > > A> I didn't want to do this because this would be meaning that SMP option > > A> may become a completely killer for modules/kernel ABI compatibility. > > > > Do we support loading non-SMP modules on SMP kernel and vice versa? > > Actually that's my point, we do. > > Attilio > >
Well we've got other similar problems lurking then. What about a module compiled on an arm system that had #define CACHE_LINE_SIZE 32 and then it gets run on a different arm system whose kernel is compiled with #define CACHE_LINE_SIZE 64? -- Ian _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"