[linuxsh-dev] Re: [linux-sh:02750] Re: [PATCH] Ensure flush_page_to_ram does

[Alex B. <ker...@be...>]

On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 14:40, Stuart Menefy wrote:
> Alex
> 
> Abe-san found a similar problem when using my TLB miss handling patches.
> When using PIO there is no cache synchronisation in the generic IDE code,
> while NFS has an explicit call to flush_dcache_page.

Well thats good. I guess there are two ways to crack this nut. I forgot
to mention I'm also using your enhanced TLB miss patches - i take it the
impication is that the old TLB handler didn't see these problems?

Are there any other issues with the TLB handler which are still keeping
it out of the mainline (LinuxSH) tree?

> The solution we tried which has worked so far is based on the Sparc code,
> which redefines the IO functions to include a cache synchronisation call.
> The patch is attached. 

I guess by concentrating on just the IDE part this patch is more
efficent as the cache is only flushed for the IDE operations rather than
every time a file is mapped in. Is this scheduled to go into the LinuxSH
tree?

-- 
Alex, homepage: http://www.bennee.com/~alex/

Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother.
- Kahlil Gibran