From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: saeed.bishara@gmail.com (saeed bishara)
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 10:39:10 +0300
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: remove unneeded check of the
	cache_is_vipt_nonaliasing()
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikUphZ4azqK50YBZa4uTyU4EystLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1305225183-15521-1-git-send-email-saeed@marvell.com>
	<BANLkTim=dmHg_vyfYN6m73z6SQXiVzM7vg@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikUphZ4azqK50YBZa4uTyU4EystLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikWJzdYOrk4=gte8zOHDVioGAOhhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

>>> Signed-off-by: Saeed Bishara <saeed@marvell.com>
>>> ---
>>> ?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 <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
thanks, can you please merge it to your tree.
saeed