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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
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 <Zoltan.Menyhart@bull.net>

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

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]