Hi all,
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:47:27AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:43:53AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> > On 08/30/2017 06:47 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:31:25AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 08/23/2017
Hi all,
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:47:27AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:43:53AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> > On 08/30/2017 06:47 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:31:25AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 08/23/2017
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:43:53AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> On 08/30/2017 06:47 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:31:25AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/23/2017 07:04 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:43:53AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> On 08/30/2017 06:47 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:31:25AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/23/2017 07:04 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho
On 08/30/2017 06:47 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:31:25AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2017 07:04 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM
On 08/30/2017 06:47 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:31:25AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2017 07:04 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:31:25AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
>
>
> On 08/23/2017 07:04 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> That said, is there
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 07:31:25AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
>
>
> On 08/23/2017 07:04 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >> Hi Mark,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> That said, is there
On 08/23/2017 07:04 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
>>> directly?
>>
>> So it turns out
On 08/23/2017 07:04 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
>>> directly?
>>
>> So it turns out
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 04:45:19PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:13:02AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:04:43PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > > Hi Mark,
> > > >
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 04:45:19PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:13:02AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:04:43PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > > Hi Mark,
> > > >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:13:02AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:04:43PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > That
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 11:13:02AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:04:43PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > That
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:04:43PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> > >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 06:04:43PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> > >
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> > directly?
>
> So it turns out that there is a difference between
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 10:58:42AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> > directly?
>
> So it turns out that there is a difference between
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> directly?
So it turns out that there is a difference between __flush_tlb_one() and
flush_tlb_kernel_range() on x86: flush_tlb_kernel_range() flushes all
Hi Mark,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> That said, is there any reason not to use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
> directly?
So it turns out that there is a difference between __flush_tlb_one() and
flush_tlb_kernel_range() on x86: flush_tlb_kernel_range() flushes all
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:35:36AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:26:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > > +static
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 05:50:47PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:35:36AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:26:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > > +static
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:35:36AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:26:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > +static inline void __flush_tlb_one(unsigned long addr)
> > > +{
> > > +
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:35:36AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:26:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > +static inline void __flush_tlb_one(unsigned long addr)
> > > +{
> > > +
Hi Mark,
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:26:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > From: Juerg Haefliger
> >
> > Add a hook for flushing a single TLB entry on arm64.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Juerg Haefliger
Hi Mark,
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:26:03PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > From: Juerg Haefliger
> >
> > Add a hook for flushing a single TLB entry on arm64.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Juerg Haefliger
> > Tested-by: Tycho Andersen
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> From: Juerg Haefliger
>
> Add a hook for flushing a single TLB entry on arm64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juerg Haefliger
> Tested-by: Tycho Andersen
> ---
>
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 02:07:49PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> From: Juerg Haefliger
>
> Add a hook for flushing a single TLB entry on arm64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Juerg Haefliger
> Tested-by: Tycho Andersen
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 8
> 1 file changed, 8
28 matches
Mail list logo