From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Igor Stoppa Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] __wr_after_init: write rare for static allocation Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:50:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20181204121805.4621-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181204121805.4621-3-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181212104900.0af52c34@mschwideX1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181212104900.0af52c34@mschwideX1> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Schwidefsky , Andy Lutomirski Cc: linux-arch , linux-s390 , Heiko Carstens , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Kees Cook , Matthew Wilcox , Igor Stoppa , Nadav Amit , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen , linux-integrity , Kernel Hardening , Linux-MM , LKML List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On 12/12/2018 11:49, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 15:13:56 -0800 > Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Hi s390 and powerpc people: it would be nice if this generic >> implementation *worked* on your architectures and that it will allow >> you to add some straightforward way to add a better arch-specific >> implementation if you think that would be better. > > As the code is right now I can guarantee that it will not work on s390. OK, I have thrown the towel wrt developing at the same time for multiple architectures. ATM I'm oriented toward getting support for one (x86_64), leaving the actual mechanism as architecture specific. Then I can add another one or two and see what makes sense to refactor. This approach should minimize the churning, overall. -- igor From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com ([209.85.208.194]:42688 "EHLO mail-lj1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728355AbeLSWuV (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:50:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] __wr_after_init: write rare for static allocation References: <20181204121805.4621-1-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181204121805.4621-3-igor.stoppa@huawei.com> <20181212104900.0af52c34@mschwideX1> From: Igor Stoppa Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:50:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181212104900.0af52c34@mschwideX1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Martin Schwidefsky , Andy Lutomirski Cc: linux-arch , linux-s390 , Heiko Carstens , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Kees Cook , Matthew Wilcox , Igor Stoppa , Nadav Amit , Peter Zijlstra , Dave Hansen , linux-integrity , Kernel Hardening , Linux-MM , LKML Message-ID: <20181219225012.-sfZslRR3BSx0Q9_OzIWir56bWl9gkXbJehgFSs5vGU@z> On 12/12/2018 11:49, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 15:13:56 -0800 > Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Hi s390 and powerpc people: it would be nice if this generic >> implementation *worked* on your architectures and that it will allow >> you to add some straightforward way to add a better arch-specific >> implementation if you think that would be better. > > As the code is right now I can guarantee that it will not work on s390. OK, I have thrown the towel wrt developing at the same time for multiple architectures. ATM I'm oriented toward getting support for one (x86_64), leaving the actual mechanism as architecture specific. Then I can add another one or two and see what makes sense to refactor. This approach should minimize the churning, overall. -- igor