[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Why is __cpu_simple_lock_t an unsigned char?
Matt Thomas wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2008, at 11:21 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>> This probably is a silly quistion, I know, but how should the
>> ldrex/strex be
>> handled in the future? Our ARM1136JF-S does not seem to support
>> Thumb does not support the swp instruction.
> because armv4 and later have swpb (swap byte).
What is the benefit of using swpb over swp? Sorry to bother you again
with this. I'm trying to compile as many things in thumb mode as I can,
and the swp instruction is still preventing me from compiling quite a
few things. If the __cpu_simple_lock_t was 32-bit could the __swp() be
replaced with something like _lock_cas without the need to emulate
ldrexb/strexb instructions? I have not managed to to this yet.
I'm trying to use 32-bit __cpu_simple_lock_t and the kernel will crash
when pmap_bootstrap tryes to initialize the pmap cache. It stops when it
tryes to do TAILQ_INSERT_TAIL at the end of the pool_init function, and
I don't understand why?
Main Index |
Thread Index |