On Wed, 30 May 2018, Dan Williams wrote:

> > Great find! Thanks for the due diligence. Feel free to add:
> >
> >     Acked-by: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
> >
> > ...on the reworks to unify ARM and x86.
> 
> One more note. The side effect of not using dax_flush() is that you
> may end up flushing caches on systems where the platform has asserted
> it will take responsibility for flushing caches at power loss. If /
> when those systems become more prevalent we may want to think of a way
> to combine the non-temporal optimization and the cache-flush-bypass
> optimizations. However that is something that can wait for a later
> change beyond 4.18.

We could define memcpy_flushpmem, that falls back to memcpy or 
memcpy_flushcache, depending on whether the platform flushes the caches at 
power loss or not.

Mikulas

--
dm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

Reply via email to