Received: from nic.funet.fi (nic.funet.fi [128.214.248.6]) by odie.barnet.ac.uk (8.8.2/8.8.0) with ESMTP id NAA14512 for <willy@odie.fluff.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 13:54:42 +0100
Received: from root@vger.rutgers.edu (port 4918 [128.6.190.2]) by nic.funet.fi with ESMTP id <2051-19265>; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 15:53:54 +0300
Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id <1000375-30851>; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 08:51:10 -0400
Received: from IDENT-NOT-QUERIED@tulpi.interconnect.com.au (port 1377 [192.189.54.18]) by vger.rutgers.edu with ESMTP id <1000374-30852>; Wed, 2 Jul 1997 08:50:55 -0400
Received: from ce (acc5-ppp51.mel.interconnect.com.au [210.8.0.179]) by tulpi.interconnect.com.au with SMTP id WAA01925
(8.8.5/IDA-1.6 for <linux-arm@vger.rutgers.edu>); Wed, 2 Jul 1997 22:52:51 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <33B9A606.6A2B@cvs.com.au>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 1997 10:51:18 +1000
From: Charles Esson <charlese@cvs.com.au>
Organization: Colour Vision Systems
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-arm@vger.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re ELF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-linux-arm@vger.rutgers.edu
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
Could I please ask a few questions.
1) Does anyone know where one gets the ELF standard.
2) I could be barking up the wrong tree but:
a) The strong ARM cache uses virtual addresses.
b) To flush the write cache we have to read data from an uncached area,
16k of it.
I don't think a task switch should involve cleaning up a 16k cache, if
it does performance will be pretty poor.
If we map all processes into one virtual address space and under no
circumstances we map physical space into the virtual space twice then
the cache will never have to be flushed. This I see as a must.
