Re: pserialize(9) vs. TAILQ

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.1411201612180.5439%mail.netbsd.org@localhost>,
Eduardo Horvath  <eeh%NetBSD.org@localhost> 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"? :-)

christos