Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] i386, x86_64 Initial PAT implementation | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:06:07 -0600 |
| |
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/
| |