Alex Shi <seakeel@xxxxxxxxx> 于2021年5月31日周一 下午6:04写道： > > > > On 2021/5/31 下午5:18, yanteng si wrote: > > Alex Shi <seakeel@xxxxxxxxx> 于2021年5月31日周一 上午11:11写道： > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2021/5/27 下午12:31, Yanteng Si wrote: > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/cachetlb.rst b/Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/cachetlb.rst > >>> new file mode 100644 > >>> index 000000000000..9568c15f4139 > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/Documentation/translations/zh_CN/core-api/cachetlb.rst > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,319 @@ > >>> +====================== > >>> +Linux下的缓存和TLB冲洗 > >>> +====================== > >>> + > >> > >> Guys, > >> > >> I don't insist on the 'flush' translation, although it is used to be translated > >> as 刷新. I just never see it was translated as ‘冲洗’ in computer area. > >> > >> Any more comments or suggestions for this? > > Dear Alex, > > > > I admit that "冲洗" doesn't sound very good. But,How to translate > > "refresh（刷新）"?:-) > > > > The act of "flush" is to invalidate dirty data，This is obviously not > > consistent with the act of "refreshing", which is simply invalid. > > "刷新" is actually two operations, i.e. brush off the old one and come > > back to the new one. > > > > This make sense, but would the word 冲刷 better? A brand new word may take > more time to be custom. Okay, I will use “刷新”. Thanks, Yanteng > > > > BTW： > > flush is ambiguous in the description of cache management because it > > can mean both invalidation and write-back, while TLB only has an > > invalidation operation here, so there is no ambiguity in using flush > > here. > > > > Thanks, > > Yanteng > >
