On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Attilio Rao <atti...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Ian Lepore > <free...@damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote: >> 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? > > That should not happen. Is that a real case where you build a module > for an ARM family and want to run against a kernel compiled for > another?
Besides that, the ARM CACHE_LINE_SIZE is defined in the shared headers so there is no way this can be a problem. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ 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"