On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 06:58:00PM +0200, Marco wrote:
Jared Hulbert wrote:
Why not just fix flush_tlb_range()?
If an arch has a flush_tlb_kernel_page() that works then it stands to
reason that the flush_tlb_kernel_range() shouldn't work with minimal
effort, no?
flush_tlb_kernel_page() is a new one to me, it doesn't have any mention
in Documentation/cachetlb.txt anyways.
Many of the flush_tlb_kernel_range() implementations do ranged checks
with tunables to determine whether it is more expensive to selectively
flush vs just blowing the entire TLB away.
Likewise, there is no reason why those 4 architectures can not just shove
that if (end <= start + PAGE_SIZE) check in the beginning of their
flush_tlb_kernel_range() and fall back on flush_tlb_kernel_page() for
those cases. Hiding this in generic code is definitely not the way to go.
Ok I'll change that function at arch level and I'll remove the ifdef,
I'll call only flush_tlb_kernel_page(), but I'd like to know what is
the opinion of the arch maintainers to do that. (Who is the maintainer
of H8300 arch?)
No, you should call flush_tlb_kernel_range() and just fix up the
flush_tlb_kernel_range() calls to wrap in to flush_tlb_kernel_page(). As
far as the kernel is concerned, flush_tlb_kernel_page() is not a standard
interface, as it has no mention in Documentation/cachetlb.txt.
flush_tlb_page() and flush_tlb_kernel_range() on the other hand are both
standard interfaces.
H8300 is a nommu platform, so it has no TLB to flush. Yoshinori Sato is
the maintainer. Consult the MAINTAINERS file, that's what it is there for.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
