| To: | Dominic Sweetman <dom@algor.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: mips32_flush_cache routine corrupts CP0_STATUS with gcc-2.96 |
| From: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl> |
| Date: | Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:40:17 +0200 (MET DST) |
| Cc: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@oss.sgi.com>, "Gleb O. Raiko" <raiko@niisi.msk.ru>, Carsten Langgaard <carstenl@mips.com>, Jon Burgess <Jon_Burgess@eur.3com.com>, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
| In-reply-to: | <15662.3715.334923.669657@gladsmuir.algor.co.uk> |
| Organization: | Technical University of Gdansk |
| Reply-to: | "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com |
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Dominic Sweetman wrote: > PS: my standard appeal. When you say you 'flush' a cache do you mean > invalidate, write-back, or both? If (as I suspect) not all of you > mean the same thing, should you not instead speak of 'invalidate' and > 'writeback'... sloppy language surely leads to sloppy programming? For me, a "flush" is both (i.e., as Gleb noticed, that's what functions with the word in names do). For a lone write back or invalidation, I would use these terms respectively. Well, for the R3k the term is unambiguous anyway... -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available + |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [2.4 PATCH] pcnet32.c - tx underflow error, Jun Sun |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: mips32_flush_cache routine corrupts CP0_STATUS with gcc-2.96, Maciej W. Rozycki |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: mips32_flush_cache routine corrupts CP0_STATUS with gcc-2.96, Gleb O. Raiko |
| Next by Thread: | Re: mips32_flush_cache routine corrupts CP0_STATUS with gcc-2.96, Carsten Langgaard |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |