From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Richard Weinberger Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64,ia64,ppc,s390,sh,tile,um,x86,mm: Remove default gate area Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:20:15 +0200 Message-ID: <53C8F4DF.8020103@nod.at> References: <70f331f59e620dc4e66bd3fa095e6f6b744b532b.1405281639.git.luto@amacapital.net> <20140718101416.GB1818@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140718101416.GB1818@arm.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Will Deacon , Andy Lutomirski Cc: Catalin Marinas , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , "linux390@de.ibm.com" , Chris Metcalf , Jeff Dike , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Nathan Lynch , X86 ML , linux-arch , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Am 18.07.2014 12:14, schrieb Will Deacon: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:47:26PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> The core mm code will provide a default gate area based on >>> FIXADDR_USER_START and FIXADDR_USER_END if >>> !defined(__HAVE_ARCH_GATE_AREA) && defined(AT_SYSINFO_EHDR). >>> >>> This default is only useful for ia64. arm64, ppc, s390, sh, tile, >>> 64-bit UML, and x86_32 have their own code just to disable it. arm, >>> 32-bit UML, and x86_64 have gate areas, but they have their own >>> implementations. >>> >>> This gets rid of the default and moves the code into ia64. >>> >>> This should save some code on architectures without a gate area: it's >>> now possible to inline the gate_area functions in the default case. >> >> Can one of you pull this somewhere? Otherwise I can put it somewhere >> stable and ask for -next inclusion, but that seems like overkill for a >> single patch. For the um bits: Acked-by: Richard Weinberger > I'd be happy to take the arm64 part, but it doesn't feel right for mm/* > changes (or changes to other archs) to go via our tree. > > I'm not sure what the best approach is if you want to send this via a single > tree. Maybe you could ask akpm nicely? Going though Andrew's tree sounds sane to me. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org