On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:40:06PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > than flushing the caches - so long as by "flush" we mean invalidate > > with writeback (on copyback caches), of course. > > What's wrong with cacheflush(addr, count, which) that actually checks if > <addr; addr+count> lies within the caller's address space before > performing the flush and returns -EPERM otherwise? It would make the > caller crawl like a turtle if it wished to but it would leave other > processes alone. cacheflush(2) actually is supposed to handle things that way. Ralf
