Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 08/10/2009 02:28:19: > > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 02:19 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote on 08/10/2009 > > 02:04:56: > > > > > > > > > > Yes it does. If one adds HWEXEC it will fail, right? > > > > > > Why ? We can just filter out DSISR, we don't really care why it failed > > > as long as we know whether it was a store or not. > > > > > > > Also this count as a read and you could easily end up > > > > in the protection case(in 2.4 you do) > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "the protection case" Again, the C code > > > shouldn't care. > > > > it does, and it should. How else should you know if you try > > to read a NA space? > > Generic code should sort it out in handle_mm_fault() (or earlier if it > can't find a VMA at all).
How can it? You need to know more that just read and write. > > The DSISR munging is really not necessary I believe. Well, it is today and I don't see how you can remove it. > > > 2.4 and 2.6 have the same handling in asm. > > Yeah but the C code, especially the generic part, is different. yes, but it seem to work the same. > > > hmm, maybe I should just call C, but 8xx isn't a speed monster so every > > cycle counts :) > > But that's a slow path anyways. How so? You take a TLB Error for the first write to every page. Jocke _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
