David Daney wrote: > I cannot parse the meaning out of these last two sentences. The > cacheflush() system call both exists and works. You want to change it? Let me rewind a bit. I have a multithreaded binary running on multiple physical CPUs. As part of a debugging mechanism, I want to make changes to .text from a thread dedicated to the purpose. This requires at the least icache flushes on all CPUs but also hazard avoidance measures on all CPUs. So I understand anyway. The cacheflush call will do the flush but not the hazard avoidance. In order to solve my particular issue I am thinking about adding the hazard avoidance into cacheflush for my particular application. It is not a question of cacheflush being wrong, but of extending it to meet my needs. In fact, it seems like a useful change -- it will allow an application to do exactly what I want to do, and easily so, and would seem a logical place for the functionality to reside. Sorry if I seem a bit muddled -- this is extremely low level and not what I deal with day to day. Joe Buehler
