On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 19:29 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > They could just #define one to the other though, there are only a > small > number of them. Is there a downside to not making them distinct? i386 > for example probably would just keep doing a tlb flush for fork and > not > want to worry about touching the tlb gather stuff. But the tlb gather stuff just does ... a flush_tlb_mm() on x86 :-) I really think it's the right API Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()
- References:
- removing flush_tlb_mm as a generic hook ?
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: removing flush_tlb_mm as a generic hook ?
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- removing flush_tlb_mm as a generic hook ?
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH][RFC] kvm-scheduler integration
- Next by Date: Re: Moving MD/LVM from PPC to x86
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Use mmu_gather for fork() instead of flush_tlb_mm()
- Index(es):
 |