[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
Andi Kleen <> 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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-08-30 18:09    [W:0.079 / U:8.632 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site