On 20/03/18 10:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.03.18 at 10:29, wrote:
>> On 20/03/18 10:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.03.18 at 09:50, wrote:
While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some
TLB invalidation problem I
>>> On 20.03.18 at 10:29, wrote:
> On 20/03/18 10:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.03.18 at 09:50, wrote:
>>> While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some
>>> TLB invalidation problem I discovered a piece of code looking rather
>>> fishy
On 20/03/18 10:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 20.03.18 at 09:50, wrote:
>> While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some
>> TLB invalidation problem I discovered a piece of code looking rather
>> fishy to me.
>>
>> Is it correct for
>>> On 20.03.18 at 09:50, wrote:
> While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some
> TLB invalidation problem I discovered a piece of code looking rather
> fishy to me.
>
> Is it correct for new_tlbflush_clock_period() to use FLUSH_TLB instead
> of
While hunting a strange bug in my PCID patch series hinting at some
TLB invalidation problem I discovered a piece of code looking rather
fishy to me.
Is it correct for new_tlbflush_clock_period() to use FLUSH_TLB instead
of FLUSH_TLB_GLOBAL?
While not being a problem in current code as both will