On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 20/12/17 09:34, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
When an interrupt is
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 20/12/17 09:34, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation
On 20/12/17 09:34, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>> When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
>>> supports caching might still
On 20/12/17 09:34, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>> When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
>>> supports caching might still have cached data for a
On 20/12/17 09:34, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>> When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
>>> supports caching might still
On 20/12/17 09:34, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>>> When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
>>> supports caching might still have cached data for a
Hi Marc,
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>> When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
>> supports caching might still have cached data for a previous
>> (no longer valid)
Hi Marc,
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
>> When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
>> supports caching might still have cached data for a previous
>> (no longer valid) mapping of the interrupt.
On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
> supports caching might still have cached data for a previous
> (no longer valid) mapping of the interrupt. In particular, in a distributed
> GIC implementation like multi-socket
On 20/12/17 09:15, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
> supports caching might still have cached data for a previous
> (no longer valid) mapping of the interrupt. In particular, in a distributed
> GIC implementation like multi-socket
When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
supports caching might still have cached data for a previous
(no longer valid) mapping of the interrupt. In particular, in a distributed
GIC implementation like multi-socket SoC platfroms. Hence it is necessary
to flush cached
When an interrupt is moved, it is possible that an implementation that
supports caching might still have cached data for a previous
(no longer valid) mapping of the interrupt. In particular, in a distributed
GIC implementation like multi-socket SoC platfroms. Hence it is necessary
to flush cached
12 matches
Mail list logo