On 17/03/2016 18:57, Richard Henderson wrote: > > @@ -951,18 +959,10 @@ static inline void tb_jmp_remove(TranslationBlock > > *tb, int n) > > } > > /* now we can suppress tb(n) from the list */ > > *ptb = tb->jmp_next[n]; > > - > > - tb->jmp_next[n] = NULL; > > + tb_reset_jump(tb, n); > > What's the motivation here? This implies an extra cache flush. > Where were we resetting the jump previously? Or is this a bug > in that we *weren't* resetting the jump previously?
Indeed I think this patch can be removed if it has a performance effect on machines that require icache invalidation. If it doesn't, it would be just a small code simplification. Paolo
