J'ai essayé sur un PIII avec chipset Intel et sur un Athlon avec chipset Via, dans les 2 cas j'ai :
drivers/block/block.o: In function `lo_send':
drivers/block/block.o(.text+0x86bf): undefined reference to `deactivate_page'
drivers/block/block.o(.text+0x8709): undefined reference to `deactivate_page'
make: *** [vmlinux] Erreur 1
Linus a sorti une explication cryptologique, si quelqu'un peut me l'expliquer ?
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> no idea why deactivate_page disappeared, it > made sense to deactivate the
> lower level cache
Answer me this: How would it get activated in the first place? Right. By being accessed multiple times, that's how. Which you claim it
won't be - in which case de-activating it is a no-op, and unnecessary. Now, there's another possibility: that it _does_ get accessed multiple
times, _despite_ being the lower-level cache. In which case de-activating
it is the wrong thing to do. So we basically have two cases. And in neither case does it make sense to
de-activate the page. Eh? Linus
[^] # Re: Un bug dans la compil d'une release
Posté par Anonyme . En réponse à la dépêche Noyau 2.4.14 out. Évalué à 5.
J'ai essayé sur un PIII avec chipset Intel et sur un Athlon avec chipset Via, dans les 2 cas j'ai :
drivers/block/block.o: In function `lo_send':
drivers/block/block.o(.text+0x86bf): undefined reference to `deactivate_page'
drivers/block/block.o(.text+0x8709): undefined reference to `deactivate_page'
make: *** [vmlinux] Erreur 1
Linus a sorti une explication cryptologique, si quelqu'un peut me l'expliquer ?
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> no idea why deactivate_page disappeared, it > made sense to deactivate the
> lower level cache
Answer me this: How would it get activated in the first place? Right. By being accessed multiple times, that's how. Which you claim it
won't be - in which case de-activating it is a no-op, and unnecessary. Now, there's another possibility: that it _does_ get accessed multiple
times, _despite_ being the lower-level cache. In which case de-activating
it is the wrong thing to do. So we basically have two cases. And in neither case does it make sense to
de-activate the page. Eh? Linus