Re: Enhancing semantics with memremap() - aliasing with memremap()

["Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com>]

On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 19:27 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:25:14PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:58:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:36:42PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Is it a good time for that now? I would hope identifying proper
> > > > aliasing uses for memremap() might be a bit easier now than for
> > > > ioremap() given its not used as widely. It may be an easier target
> > > > to also write some grammar rules for it as well.
> > > 
> > > So you want an explicit opt-in flag to allow aliasing?  Sounds fine to
> > > me.
> >   
> > Yup! Can the default then safely already be no-aliasing then?
>
> Or if aliasing is truly not needed as often a different API, this
> maybe useful later if we pick up again module namespace stuff.

I agree that we should be able to change memremap() to fail an aliasing
request since it's a relatively new interface.  ioremap() needs to start
from adding a warning message.

Thanks,
-Toshi