Re: pserialize(9) vs. TAILQ

[Eduardo Horvath <eeh%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

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 
convinced the existing APIs are sufficient to get that working.

Eduardo