On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:40:51AM +0000, Chris Gilbert wrote:
The documentation says every pmap_kremove needs a pmap_update, relying on
something later on doing a pmap_update is risky.
Not here. The address is used strictly for one purpose and a CPU can
only use it when holding the mutex. So the pmap_update after
pmap_kremove shouldn't be needed.
In theory pmap_kremove could be optimised to not change anything in
hardware, and defer the work to be done till the pmap_update, while I don't
believe any platform has gone to that level yet, we shouldn't exclude the
possibility by not following the documented API.
I don't read the documentation that way. pmap_update will happen at a
later point anyway and that should be good enough.