>>> On 22.08.12 at 10:54, Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com> wrote: > On 08/22/2012 03:39 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>>> Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com> 08/22/12 5:24 AM >>> >>> On 08/20/2012 10:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> I was thought you have 'Agreed' for xen part code. :) >> >> I had agreed to it being done the right way, and I had pointed out the >> problem once. I can't say for sure that I looked at the most recent rev >> closely enough to spot the issue still being unfixed. >> >>>> For one, while TLB_FLUSH_ALL gets passed as 'end' argument to >>>> flush_tlb_others(), the Xen code was made to check its 'start' >>>> parameter. >>> >>> Do you mean need the following change? --untested. >> >> Yes. I'd question though whether for that special case it shouldn't be >> start _and_ end to get passed the special value. > > > Actually the special value is already there in old code. > so, what's your meaning of the question?
I'm saying that I'd rather see #define flush_tlb_mm(mm) flush_tlb_mm_range(mm, TLB_FLUSH_ALL, TLB_FLUSH_ALL, 0UL) Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
