Re: mp_machdep.c (was Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug reports requested - acpi])

My solution works for current so I am going to commit it and MFC after
a while. To be sure that I am not on the wrong way I need some
reviewed/approved signs ;-) I also hope to get one (or more) tested signs.

Patch I plan to commit following patch:

Index: mp_machdep.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/i386/i386/mp_machdep.c,v
retrieving revision 1.238
diff -u -r1.238 mp_machdep.c
--- mp_machdep.c        1 Sep 2004 06:42:01 -0000       1.238
+++ mp_machdep.c        21 Sep 2004 15:54:41 -0000
_at__at_ -743,10 +743,11 _at__at_
        u_int8_t *dst8;
        u_int16_t *dst16;
        u_int32_t *dst32;
+       vm_offset_t va = (vm_offset_t) dst;

        POSTCODE(INSTALL_AP_TRAMP_POST);

-       pmap_kenter(boot_address + KERNBASE, boot_address);
+       pmap_map(&va, boot_address, boot_address + size, 0);
        for (x = 0; x < size; ++x)
                *dst++ = *src++;

Any signs for(or against)?

Thanks!

PS. John: I am against of pmap_kenter/pmap_invalidate_XXX since we could 
get
the same problem if we would use atomic functions instead of composite 
functions,
which, I hope, will track all changes in the future.

rik