svn commit: r193712 - head/sys/arm/arm

Stanislav Sedov stas at
Mon Jun 8 16:20:19 UTC 2009

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 17:56:51 +0200
Rafal Jaworowski <raj at> mentioned:

> Do you see anything wrong with calling cpu_xxx_inv_range directly?  
> Writing back (if required) was already performed by  
> pmap_remove_write(), and what we only need at this point is  
> invalidation. pmap_dcache_wb_range would also eventually call  
> cpu_XXX_inv_range if given a proper combination of flags (BTW: the  
> do_inv flag in your example should be TRUE for our context to work),  
> so it wouldn't be any simpler. I'd rather prefer doing explicitly what  
> is needed without extra wrapping.

I don't see anything particulary wrong with your approach. On the other
hand, using pmap_dcache_wb_range will help to reduce the code duplication,
so if one day we'll think that something else is needed to properly
invalidate the PTE range, we'll be able to modify the pmap_dcache_wb_range
accordingly without looking for other parts of code that does the same.

Stanislav Sedov
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the svn-src-all mailing list