> global_flush_tlb() would be the correct one.

[Igor M Podlesny]

On 2008-02-05 13:53, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-02-05 at 13:44 +0700, Igor M Podlesny wrote:
>> On 2008-02-05 13:34, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> 	1) To have compiled it I had to replace global_flush_tlb()
>> >> call with __flush_tlb_all() and still guessing was it(?) a correct
>> >> replacment at all :-)
>> > 
>> > it is not; 
>> 
>> 	I see, thanks. What would be the correct one? ;-)
> 
> global_flush_tlb() would be the correct one.
> 
	Looking at the kernel's patch I don't think so:

-void global_flush_tlb(void)
-{
-       struct list_head l;
-       struct page *pg, *next;
-
-       BUG_ON(irqs_disabled());
-
-       spin_lock_irq(&cpa_lock);
-       list_replace_init(&df_list, &l);
-       spin_unlock_irq(&cpa_lock);
-       flush_map(&l);
-       list_for_each_entry_safe(pg, next, &l, lru) {
-               list_del(&pg->lru);
-               clear_bit(PG_arch_1, &pg->flags);
-               if (PageReserved(pg) || !cpu_has_pse || page_private(pg) != 0)
-                       continue;
-               ClearPagePrivate(pg);
-               __free_page(pg);
-       }
-}
-
-EXPORT_SYMBOL(global_flush_tlb);

-- 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/