From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lixom.net (lixom.net [66.141.50.11]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CCE6DDDF4 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:23:40 +1100 (EST) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:25:19 -0600 From: Olof Johansson To: Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [POWERPC] vdso: Fixes for cache block sizes Message-ID: <20071119042519.GA28872@lixom.net> References: <20071114192405.GA1637@lixom.net> <1195072102.28865.41.camel@pasglop> <20071114212823.GA3044@lixom.net> <18241.3066.346441.180033@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <18241.3066.346441.180033@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Cc: dwmw2@infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 03:07:22PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Olof Johansson writes: > > > [POWERPC] vdso: Fixes for cache line sizes > > > > Current VDSO implementation is hardcoded to 128 byte cache blocks, > > which are only used on IBM's 64-bit processors. > > > > Convert it to get the blocks sizes out of vdso_data instead, similar > > to how the ppc64 in-kernel cache flush does it. > > OK, but you have removed a "crclr cr0*4+so" instruction in a couple of > places. They are there so that the functions follow the convention > for system calls, where cr0.SO set on return indicates an error, and > clear indicates no error. Was there any special reason why you > removed them? If not, please put them back (after the last cmp or > dot-form instruction). Good catch. They must have fallen off when I copied over the in-kernel versions. I'll repost tomorrow. Thanks, -Olof