On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 14:39 +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote:
> > > i don't see how that can be true, given that most of the definitions
> > > of the clear_page() macro are simply invocations of memset(). see for
> > > yourself:
> > *MOST*. Not all.
> > For example an SSE version will at least assume 16 byte alignment, etc
> > etc.
>
> What about an if (adress & 15) { memset } else { sse stuff }
> or is that too obvious? :-)
it's only one example. clear_page() working only on a full page is a
nice restriction that allows the implementation to be optimized (again
the x86 hardware that had a hardware page zeroer comes to mind, the hw
is only 4 years old or so... and future hw may have it again)
clear_page() is more restricted than memset(). And that's good, it
allows for a more focused implementation. Otherwise there'd be no reason
to HAVE a clear_page(), if it just was a memset wrapper entirely.
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via
http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
