On Wednesday 28 July 2004 22:15, Frank van der Linden wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 06:50:45AM +0900, YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> > Frank, can you decide which way to take, as a maintainer of the ports?
> > i don't see any benefits, or have enough motivation to have a branch
> > for this.  if it's required to have a branch, i'd just give up and
> > throw the patch away.
>
> I would like to see the code shared, so I appreciate your patch. Please
> do check it in, and eventually put the pmap under arch/x86.
>
> It does help PAE, although a little more work for that is needed. PAE
> support would be nice, but then again, the new high-end Intel chips run
> NetBSD/amd64 just fine, so the need for it is going away.

I have three problems with this change:

1) As has already been said, some of seems to be "wrong" -- namely the 
renaming of PDP to L1 and PTP to L2.  There is absolutely no reason for 
gratuitous name changes that diversion from the architecture spec.

2) Of the "functional" changes, almost all of them conflict heavily (and will 
almost certainly be replaced by) changes I'm working on to eliminate the 
"APTD" table completely, which will help both platforms.

3) If you're going to make changes on behalf of PAE, I'd like to see some 
actual PAE support, which just isn't here.

So, I cast a strong "NAY".