From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:10:27 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20170217141328.164563-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20170217141328.164563-34-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Dave Hansen Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , the arch/x86 maintainers , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Andy Lutomirski , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Catalin Marinas , Linux API List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > Is this likely to break anything in practice? Nah. But it would nice > to avoid it. So I go the other way: what *I* would like to avoid is odd code that is hard to follow. I'd much rather make the code be simple and the rules be straightforward, and not introduce that complicated "different address limits" thing at all. Then, _if_ we ever find a case where it makes a difference, we could go the more complex route. But not first implementation, and not without a real example of why we shouldn't just keep things simple. Linus -- 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:34407 "EHLO mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934861AbdBQVK3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:10:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20170217141328.164563-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> <20170217141328.164563-34-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 13:10:27 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dave Hansen Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Andrew Morton , the arch/x86 maintainers , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Arnd Bergmann , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Andy Lutomirski , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , linux-mm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Catalin Marinas , Linux API Message-ID: <20170217211027.shh_WEzlxV7rxeB7y7niSfidEF-lCyr3vEJdmbMTdnM@z> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Dave Hansen wrote: > > Is this likely to break anything in practice? Nah. But it would nice > to avoid it. So I go the other way: what *I* would like to avoid is odd code that is hard to follow. I'd much rather make the code be simple and the rules be straightforward, and not introduce that complicated "different address limits" thing at all. Then, _if_ we ever find a case where it makes a difference, we could go the more complex route. But not first implementation, and not without a real example of why we shouldn't just keep things simple. Linus