RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] alt_itlb_miss?

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Masaki Kanno [mailto:kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 2006年4月21日 18:56
>>>
>>>Hi Kan,
>>>
>>>   Thanks, this looks like exactly what we need.  If there are no
>other
>>>comments, please send me this patch w/ a Signed-off-by and we can
>get
>>>it
>>>in tree.  BTW, glad to hear you're working on the FPSWA issue and
>are
>>>making good progress!  Thanks,
>>>
>>>     Alex
>>
>>Seems OK. One small comment is that we may also remove
>>FORCE_CRASH completely since the assumption to add that
>>check doesn't exist now. Actually VHPT_CCHAIN_LOOKUP
>>already makes check upon VMM area to decide whether jumping
>>to alt_itlb_miss handler. In this case, simply removing
>>FORCE_CRASH line can also work. :-)
>
>If alt_itlb_fault occurred, we need ifa checking and FORCE_CRASH,
>don't we?
>Therefore I don't need to change my patch, do I?
>

The check is already made before jumping to alt_itlb_miss. 
Also architecturally there's no limitation to prevent uncacheable 
instruction falling into that category. So I think there's no need 
for existence of FORCE_CRASH there, right? :-)

Thanks,
Kevin

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel