Re: CVS commit: src

[Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>]

On Feb 17, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Julio Merino wrote:

> On 2/17/12 5:58 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
>> 
>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Julio Merino wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2/17/12 5:45 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Julio Merino wrote:
>>>>> So the modules are broken on purpose?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes.
>>> 
>>> Interesting.  If that's the case, shouldn't we break PAGE_SIZE for all 
>>> platforms and keep things consistent?
>> 
>> For those with variable page sizes (like powerpc or mips), yes.
> 
> I was asking about *all* platforms regardless of whether they have static or 
> variable page sizes.  Keeping this inconsistent seems like a very easy way of 
> writing non-portable code...

Again they should use PAGE_SIZE which can be constant or not.
No reason for a non-constant PAGE_SIZE on alpha or vax which has fixed sized 
pages.

>>> The modules that are broken (see the referenced PR for a list) fail due to 
>>> a missing uvmexp_pagesize symbol (*not* PAGE_SIZE itself), which I assumed 
>>> was there to prevent depending on the PAGE_SIZE compile-time constant.  I 
>>> understand this information not being statically-available because of 
>>> variable-page sizes in these platforms.
>> 
>> properly should use uvmexp.pagesize instead.
> 
> Aha, I see.  Does it make sense to keep the test after renaming PAGE_SIZE to 
> uvmexp.pagesize?  It's a public symbol after all and we really should have 
> tests for these, I think.
> 
> Do we need to go over the broken modules one by one and replace PAGE_SIZE 
> with uvmexp.pagesize?  (I'm expecting this won't be as easy as it sounds due 
> to preprocessor conditionals et. al.)

They should still use PAGE_SIZE which should evaluate to uvmexp.pagesize