On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, Gleb O. Raiko wrote:
> Why did you change name of bits in CP0 regs ? It seems it's possible to
Because they serve a different functionality for R[23]K (ISolate Cache
and SWap Cache). Current names reflect R4K+ and are confusing in R[23]K
code. Note that R4K+ names are left intact, so this should not be a
problem for non R[23]K CPUs.
> get the patch functionality w/o such a change. Morover, the changes in
> the icache line size assumption
> are already there, in 2.3. What is a version of linux you patch is
> against ?
The CVS tree from oss.sgi.com. As of Jun 19, 4:25 UTC I can't see it
there. It claims to be version 2.4.0-test1. Isn't that current?
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
|