[Top] [All Lists]

Re: User applications

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Subject: Re: User applications
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:27:29 -0200
Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" <>,, Carsten Langgaard <>, Michael Shmulevich <>
In-reply-to: <>; from on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:40:06PM +0100
References: <010701c07986$ac768180$0deca8c0@Ulysses> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:40:06PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

> > than flushing the caches - so long as by "flush" we mean invalidate
> > with writeback (on copyback caches), of course.
>  What's wrong with cacheflush(addr, count, which) that actually checks if
> <addr; addr+count> lies within the caller's address space before
> performing the flush and returns -EPERM otherwise?  It would make the
> caller crawl like a turtle if it wished to but it would leave other
> processes alone. 

cacheflush(2) actually is supposed to handle things that way.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>