On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Rohit Seth wrote: > On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 15:18 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > Right. Extra flush_icache_page routines will add cost to archs that > have non-null definition of this routine. BTW, isn't flush_icache_page > marked for deprecation?
Yes, flush_icache_page is marked for deprecation: but that's hardly a reason to add another under a different name! (Not quite what you did, but...) > lazy_mmu_prot_update was added specifically for notifying change in > protection. So, in a way it is closer to update_mmu_cache (Which is for > change in mappings itself). Though for ia64 implementation, this ends > up flushing the icaches when needed. The ia64 implementation is the only one which has any use for it, and it's only interested when it's executable i.e. "lazy_mmu_prot_update" is a name concealing some overdesign. > Hopefully my reply is useful. Yes, thanks Rohit, and I'll want to read through it again later. In particular, I've now a better idea what's "lazy" about it. Hugh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
