lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subject> global_flush_tlb() would be the correct one.
On 2008-02-05 13:53, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:44 +0700, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
>> On 2008-02-05 13:34, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> 1) To have compiled it I had to replace global_flush_tlb()
>> >> call with __flush_tlb_all() and still guessing was it(?) a correct
>> >> replacment at all :-)
>> >
>> > it is not;
>>
>> I see, thanks. What would be the correct one? ;-)
>
> global_flush_tlb() would be the correct one.
>
Looking at the kernel's patch I don't think so:

-void global_flush_tlb(void)
-{
- struct list_head l;
- struct page *pg, *next;
-
- BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
-
- spin_lock_irq(&cpa_lock);
- list_replace_init(&df_list, &l);
- spin_unlock_irq(&cpa_lock);
- flush_map(&l);
- list_for_each_entry_safe(pg, next, &l, lru) {
- list_del(&pg->lru);
- clear_bit(PG_arch_1, &pg->flags);
- if (PageReserved(pg) || !cpu_has_pse || page_private(pg) != 0)
- continue;
- ClearPagePrivate(pg);
- __free_page(pg);
- }
-}
-
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(global_flush_tlb);
--


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-02-05 07:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site