From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <38A1008D.BB560C55@netx4.com> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000 00:52:13 -0500 From: Dan Malek MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Allworth CC: Jesper Skov , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: more Re: Low memory problems in 8xx Linux References: <20000201235813.4F5611B51A@elph.research.canon.com.au> <38977960.40E014A1@zeta.org.au> <38A0BED6.AD2E336C@zeta.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Just a note to let you guys know you are getting just a little carried away here..... You are placing things in the TLB specific handler that are supposed to be handled generically in places like arch/ppc/mm/fault.c. Yes, it may be a little bit of a speed improvement, but you are placing code in the TLB miss handler that logically should be executed as part of the TLB Error handler. In some cases, it is appropriate to store something in the TLB that will cause a subsequent fault into the TLB Error handler (i.e. a pte that doesn't look valid). If you continue down this path, you will end up exceeding the space allocated for the trap handler, and simply re-implement code found elsewhere. While some of the updates are genuine bugs that should be corrected, some of the other stuff isn't proper, so don't be surprised when it doesn't show up in the real kernel sources. -- Dan ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/