tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: pserialize(9) vs. TAILQ

In article <>,
Eduardo Horvath  <> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 2014, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 01:05:05PM +0800, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> > 
>> > find hardware which behaves like this to test on).  I haven't
>> > heard anything one way or the other concerning support for MP
>> > Alphas, but the implicit message from the current state of
>> > the code is that an MP Alpha isn't a NetBSD target.
>> We do run on a pretty good variety of multiprocessor Alpha systems.
>> Whether it's worth the effort to ensure we continue to do so... well,
>> it might be worth at least a policy of "do no harm" (in other words,
>> declaring the necessary barrier operation and using it where we notice
>> it is needed).
>Or you could try to get the kernel to run on a SPARC V9 machine running 
>with RMO memory ordering.  There's a lot more of those around.  I'm not 

Isn't "RMO Memory Ordering" like "Windows/NT New Technology" or 
"Colgate/FP with Fluoride Protection"? :-)


Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index