From owner-freebsd-mips@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 23 23:09:55 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mips@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB858106566B; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:09:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2EEE8FC16; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:09:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pbbrp2 with SMTP id rp2so2387126pbb.13 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:09:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lPP5YvtAv3fjOFO37wLOSmHkqwKO0tRK39RRHX3KsdA=; b=iJlel0NdvHa0pb0YIuPboM2W+Rhof6sYq13DQpJWAFdf6lK+rJ5UaFiLI+eYNL7Q1h uqaT7qobOE4KQkVME6sDZV2/NaWe2eFrX6VP1YWOUw41MY5mf4sneuJNr4sscZMIiEGm wRkDb3DXJcY+Uj4x3p4A1gRJHMSw6UQNlIU3CvJ2vvecgXvW5nzwmwRe5Hv2gGsIlwWl L7evO1FlXhUm3hEt/RrblcgQpJmFvp/Kcq2GLYMmIKsSIBFkCijwlha/McepSbcOowMD kMSao4x61/eWBKHA36z7yml0i9E9dHQR+dmw3ddp0iu4WSaD+Ugid52ev7CrW2OsBozE 59ww== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.66.78.73 with SMTP id z9mr6742852paw.9.1345763395120; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.68.36.106 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:09:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1345757300.27688.535.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <1345757300.27688.535.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:09:55 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: knDTxNAgW4qmvzZwfhemm3Ea6BQ Message-ID: From: Adrian Chadd To: Ian Lepore Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org, freebsd-mips@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Partial cacheline flush problems on ARM and MIPS X-BeenThere: freebsd-mips@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to MIPS List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 23:09:56 -0000 [snip] Whoa, there's USB code that has these small buffers straddle cache lines? Why aren't they just allocated to always be in their own separate buffers, so they don't ever have to worry about overlapping cache lines? Adrian