On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 12:50, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On 29 May 2002, Justin Carlson wrote: > > > Here's a patch against cvs that does the rename. Unless anyone has > > objections, Ralf, could you apply this? > > That looks fine to me. I'd keep the leading double underscore, though -- > it acts as a warning sign the function is internal and low-level and thus > it should not be used without an appropriate justification. > Yes, you're right, it's not a standard function to have. But I'm already wondering if this is not the right thing to do. See below. > Well, at least r3k uses WT for dcache, so it really doesn't matter unless > what you want to achieve is to hit performance. I suspect this is also > the case for the others that ignore dcache flushes. The L1 vs L2 issue > should be investigated where applicable. Are the general semantics of the thing just broken, then? We already ignore the arguments to sys_cacheflush; would redefining the syscall to mean "flush the caches in such a way that I won't get stale instructions from this address range" actually break any current programs? (Evidently not, if several ports are already doing it that way)... More to the point, does __flush_cache_all() serve any useful purpose at all, or can it just be replaced with appropriate invocations of flush_icache_range()? Other than internal use for the individual port cache routines, it's *only* used in the syscalls and the gdb stub. I'd like to hear the rationale for __flush_cache_all() from the original author; it appears to have shown up in CVS a little more than a year ago, but I don't know who sent the patch to Ralf. Ralf, do you remember? Thanks, Justin
