[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100619074335.GB31805@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:43:35 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
x86@...nel.org, Mitch Bradley <wmb@...top.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: OLPC: add support for calling into OpenFirmware (v5)
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 06/18/2010 12:56 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/18/2010 12:42 PM, Andres Salomon wrote:
> >>> +
> >>> + /* install OFW's PDE permanently into the kernel's pgtable */
> >>> + set_pgd(&swapper_pg_dir[OLPC_OFW_PDE_NR], *ofw_pde);
> >>> + flush_tlb();
> >>> + early_iounmap(base, sizeof(olpc_ofw_pgd) * PTRS_PER_PGD);
> >>
> >> I just realized... this flush_tlb() is actually not necessary since on x86
> >> it is always legal to go from a less permissive configuration to a more
> >> permissive, and the initial configuration is "not present" which is
> >> maximally nonpermissive.
> >>
> >> Could you take it out and make sure it still works?
> >
> > small nit: an optimization barrier would still be needed if the result is
> > being relied on by the kernel.
> >
>
> In this case the optimization barrier is implicit at the return from an
> out of line function.
Which non-obvious side-effect at minimum deserves a comment. (but yes, i'm
just nitpicking)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists