csum_partial() and csum_partial_copy_generic() in badly optimized?

Gabriel Paubert paubert at iram.es
Tue Nov 19 12:24:49 EST 2002

Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

> hmm, I think you are right. The practice seems to be invalidate_dcache_range(start, start+len).
> But then the interface should be invalidate_dcache_range(start, len) instead, IMHO.
> I guess it's too late to change it now.

Probably. I don't know why it is this way since it would in most cases be
better to do the start+len in the subroutine, saving almost always one
instruction in the caller.

>>This said, the first instruction can be removed:
>>  	rlwinm	r3,r3,0,~(L1_CACHE_LINE_SIZE-1)
>>  	subf	r4,r3,r4
>>  	add	r4,r4,L1_CACHE_LINE_SIZE-1

of course this instruction should be an immediate form: addi and not add!


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list