Hi Joshua,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 08:05:58AM -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 01/22/2016 07:19, James Hogan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:06:14PM +0100, Manuel Lauss wrote:
> >> Hi James,
> [snip]
> >
> > Thanks Manuel.
> >
> > FWIW, attached is the test program I mentioned, which hits the first
> > part of this patch (flush_cache_range) via mprotect(2) and checks if
> > icache seems to have been flushed (tested on mips64r6, but should be
> > portable).
>
> Here's the output on my Octane, R14000 CPU (mips4):
>
> # ./mprotect
> Initial mprotect SUCCESS
> Looped { mprotect RW, modify, mprotect RX, test } SUCCESS
>
> This is without your patch applied. That look good?
Yep, that looks good.
> I'm assuming this CPU is too old to be affected. I can test with your
> patch after the blizzard is over later this weekend.
Unless you set MIPS_CACHE_IC_F_DC for your core (only ALCHEMY does,
until patch 2 adds I6400 to the list), then cpu_has_ic_fills_f_dc == 0
and everything should already work, as evidenced by the successful
result.
Thanks
James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
