RE: [PATCH v4 4/7] x86, mm, pat: Add pgprot_writethrough() for WT

["Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)" <Elliott@hp.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 1122 bytes --]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Lutomirski [mailto:luto@amacapital.net]
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 5:01 PM
> To: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: Kani, Toshimitsu; Elliott, Robert (Server Storage); hpa@zytor.com;
> mingo@redhat.com; akpm@linux-foundation.org; arnd@arndb.de; linux-
> mm@kvack.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; jgross@suse.com;
> stefan.bader@canonical.com; hmh@hmh.eng.br; yigal@plexistor.com;
> konrad.wilk@oracle.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/7] x86, mm, pat: Add pgprot_writethrough() for
> WT
> 
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> wrote:
...
> On the other hand, I thought that _GPL was supposed to be more about
> whether the thing using it is inherently a derived work of the Linux
> kernel.  Since WT is an Intel concept, not a Linux concept, then I
> think that this is a hard argument to make.

IBM System/360 Model 85 (1968) had write-through (i.e., store-through)
caching.  Intel might claim Write Combining, though.



N‹§²æìr¸›zǧu©ž²Æ {\b­†éì¹»\x1c®&Þ–)îÆi¢žØ^n‡r¶‰šŽŠÝ¢j$½§$¢¸\x05¢¹¨­è§~Š'.)îÄÃ,yèm¶ŸÿÃ\f%Š{±šj+ƒðèž×¦j)Z†·Ÿ