On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:56:51 +0200 Rafal Jaworowski <r...@semihalf.com> mentioned:
> > Do you see anything wrong with calling cpu_xxx_inv_range directly? > Writing back (if required) was already performed by > pmap_remove_write(), and what we only need at this point is > invalidation. pmap_dcache_wb_range would also eventually call > cpu_XXX_inv_range if given a proper combination of flags (BTW: the > do_inv flag in your example should be TRUE for our context to work), > so it wouldn't be any simpler. I'd rather prefer doing explicitly what > is needed without extra wrapping. > I don't see anything particulary wrong with your approach. On the other hand, using pmap_dcache_wb_range will help to reduce the code duplication, so if one day we'll think that something else is needed to properly invalidate the PTE range, we'll be able to modify the pmap_dcache_wb_range accordingly without looking for other parts of code that does the same. -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE
pgpP7SA8D7r4p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
