lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] i386, x86_64 Initial PAT implementation
From
Date
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> writes:

> On Tuesday 30 August 2005 17:20, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
>> Right. To the best of my understanding problem aliases are either
>> uncached/write-back or write-combine/write-back. I don't think
>> uncached/write-combine can cause problems. My basic reason for
>
> Well it can if one driver expects the mapping to be uncached and the
> other to be WC. The WC one might blast over the other one badly.
>
> Also the architecture defines all attribute conflicts to be undefined
> and it's better to not rely on undefined behaviour because that could
> break quite badly on a future microarchitecture.

Agreed. It is better.

My assessment was only to show that the immediate danger of data
corruption or problems isn't very high, even if someone does goof.

Eric

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-30 18:09    [W:0.053 / U:16.780 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site