On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:55:37 +0200
Paul Mundt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks good, thanks. flush_icache_user_range() needed one minor change:
...
> void flush_icache_user_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> struct page *page, unsigned long addr, int len)
> {
> - __flush_cache_page(vma, addr, PHYSADDR(page_address(page)));
> + flush_cache_page(vma, addr, page_to_pfn(page));
> }
What are you patching against? In the patch I sent, which are you
replying to, I made flush_icache_user_range() in this file be:
void flush_icache_user_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
struct page *page, unsigned long addr, int len)
{
__flush_cache_page(vma, addr,
PHYSADDR(page_address(page)) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
}
> > I'll push this off to Linus when 2.6.12 opens up. If folks could
> > build test this against current 2.6.x and report any failures that
> > need fixing, I would appreciate that.
> >
> You missed fs/binfmt_elf.c, this gets it working..
Again, what the heck are you patching against?
It's definitely not the patch I posted which you are
replying to. The tree would not have built for me
on 4 platforms with this error :-)
> On another note, for sh64 we don't need to actually keep
> sh64_dcache_purge_virt_page() around for anything after this change..
> flush_cache_page() was the only user of it anyways, so it makes more
> sense to just have it call sh64_dcache_purge_phy_page() directly.
>
> Here's a patch for arch/sh64/mm/cache.c that you can use in-place of the
> one you have now, builds and boots.
Again, what are you patching against? None of your patches are against
my patch at all.
