From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nathan Lynch Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64,ia64,ppc,s390,sh,tile,um,x86,mm: Remove default gate area Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:28:18 -0500 Message-ID: <53C95932.206@mentor.com> References: <70f331f59e620dc4e66bd3fa095e6f6b744b532b.1405281639.git.luto@amacapital.net> <20140718101416.GB1818@arm.com> <53C8F4DF.8020103@nod.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Richard Weinberger , Andrew Morton , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Fenghua Yu , X86 ML , Catalin Marinas , Ingo Molnar , Heiko Carstens , linux-arch , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Tony Luck , "linux-sh@vger.kernel.org" , "linux390@de.ibm.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , Martin Schwidefsky , Thomas Gleixner , Chris Metcalf , Will Deacon List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 07/18/2014 11:53 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Jul 18, 2014 3:20 AM, "Richard Weinberger" > wrote: >> >> 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. > > Splitting this will be annoying: I'd probably have to add a flag asking > for the new behavior, update all the arches, then remove the flag. The > chance of screwing up bisectability in the process seems pretty high. > This seems like overkill for a patch that mostly deletes code. > > Akpm, can you take this? FWIW: Acked-by: Nathan Lynch This patch allows me to avoid adding a bunch of empty hooks to arch/arm when adding VDSO support: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-June/268045.html -- 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