RE: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito

> This seems crazy to me.  Flushing should occur according to the
> *architecture*, not model-by-model.  Even if we happen to get "lucky"
> on pre-Montecito CPUs, that doesn't justify such ugly hacks.  Or you
> really want to debug this *again* come next CPU?

Ditto.  The only reason we should ever have model specific checks should
be to work around model specific errata (e.g. the McKinley Errata #9 code
in patch.c).

-Tony
-
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: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito
    • From: Zoltan Menyhart <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito
    • From: "David Mosberger-Tang" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: RE: regression on HP zx1 platform from ACPI autoload modulespatches
• Next by Date: Re: [ck] Re: SD still better than CFS for 3d ?(was Re: 2.6.23-rc1)
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] flush icache before set_pte take6. [4/4] optimization for cpus other than montecito
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]