NetBSD Problem Report #38720

From martin@duskware.de  Wed May 21 08:05:50 2008
Return-Path: <martin@duskware.de>
Received: from mail.netbsd.org (mail.netbsd.org [204.152.190.11])
	by narn.NetBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA21263BA66
	for <gnats-bugs@gnats.netbsd.org>; Wed, 21 May 2008 08:05:50 +0000 (UTC)
Message-Id: <20080521010058.F36A263B8BC@narn.NetBSD.org>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 01:00:58 +0000 (UTC)
From: ad@netbsd.org
Reply-To: ad@netbsd.org
To: netbsd-bugs-owner@NetBSD.org
Subject: curlwp/curcpu should be functions if _MODULE or _LKM
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-1.0

>Number:         38720
>Category:       kern
>Synopsis:       curlwp/curcpu should be functions if _MODULE or _LKM
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    kern-bug-people
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Wed May 21 08:10:00 +0000 2008
>Last-Modified:  Wed Jan 07 22:35:01 +0000 2009
>Originator:     Andrew Doran
>Release:        4.99.63
>Organization:
The NetBSD Project
>Environment:
n/a
>Description:
If _MODULE or _LKM, curlwp and curcpu() should be full function calls so 
that changes to the layout of cpu_info/lwp don't break module binary
compat. The x86 ports work like this but as far as I know it's still 
likely to be direct reference elsewhere.

>How-To-Repeat:
Code inspection.
>Fix:
See above.

>Audit-Trail:
From: Antti Kantee <pooka@cs.hut.fi>
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: kern/38720
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 00:25:41 +0200

 Would it make sense to call them cpu_{curcpu,curlwp}() instead of
 x86_curfoo() etc?

From: Andrew Doran <ad@netbsd.org>
To: gnats-bugs@NetBSD.org
Cc: kern-bug-people@netbsd.org, gnats-admin@netbsd.org,
	netbsd-bugs@netbsd.org
Subject: Re: kern/38720
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 21:17:17 +0000

 On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 10:30:04PM +0000, Antti Kantee wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR kern/38720; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: Antti Kantee <pooka@cs.hut.fi>
 > To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
 > Cc: 
 > Subject: Re: kern/38720
 > Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 00:25:41 +0200
 > 
 >  Would it make sense to call them cpu_{curcpu,curlwp}() instead of
 >  x86_curfoo() etc?

 Yes! And we could easily provide C versions if no optimised version
 available.

 Andrew

Home	PR Database Search