From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 09:38:00 +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 16 May 2011 08:39, 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 > > thanks, can you please merge it to your tree. I could but it may be better for you to just upload it to Russell's patch system (I'm not planning to send any pull requests to Russell, apart from LPAE). -- Catalin