On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:20:55 -0600 James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not religiously opposed to the separation into a flush and a non > flush case ... although I think if we have to do this, it's equivalent > to just forcing users to add the flush_kernel_dcache_page() ... but if > we can do it so that the users don't need to know the details, I think > the API is much better. I wrote that flush_kernel_dcache_page() was exist only in parisc(and sh). There is flush_dcache_page() in other architectures. And I don't think, that flush_kernel_dcache_page() should be introduced into other architectures. Actually, I don't know a lot about many architectures. So, may be. We should have a varian of rq_flush... call for architectures where ARCH_HAS_FLUSH_KERNEL_DCACHE_PAGE was defined. I wrote this before. And I continue to think such manner since I've read about ARM. -- Ilya Loginov <isloginov@xxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
