From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 22:11:44 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: remove unneeded check of the cache_is_vipt_nonaliasing() In-Reply-To: References: <1305225183-15521-1-git-send-email-saeed@marvell.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 15 May 2011 15:48, saeed bishara wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Saeed Bishara wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: Saeed Bishara >> --- >> ?arch/arm/mm/flush.c | ? ?4 ++-- >> ?1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/flush.c b/arch/arm/mm/flush.c >> index 2b269c9..f1b7998 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mm/flush.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mm/flush.c >> @@ -253,8 +253,8 @@ void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval) >> >> ? ? ? ?if (!test_and_set_bit(PG_dcache_clean, &page->flags)) >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__flush_dcache_page(mapping, page); >> - ? ? ? /* pte_exec() already checked above for non-aliasing VIPT cache */ >> - ? ? ? if (cache_is_vipt_nonaliasing() || pte_exec(pteval)) >> + >> + ? ? ? if (pte_exec(pteval)) >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?__flush_icache_all(); >> ?} >> ?#endif > can you have I a look at this patch? > the __sync_icache_dcache() returns if (cache_is_vipt_nonaliasing() && > !pte_exec(pteval)), so later, the if (cache_is_vipt_nonaliasing() || > pte_exec(pteval)) should be equivalent to ?if (pte_exec(pteval)) Your patch looks fine - when cache_is_vipt_nonaliasing(), we always have pte_exec() true at the end of this function, so no need for the additional check. Acked-by: Catalin Marinas