From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 10:42:55 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 7/7] Document the use of the arm64 contpte/nonconpte flags.
In-Reply-To: <5612C1A3.3040904@arm.com>
References: <1443818865-19846-1-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <1443818865-19846-8-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20151005164924.GB5557@MBP.local> <5612C1A3.3040904@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20151006094254.GB30154@localhost>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 01:29:55PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 11:49 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >I recall you asked the question but I didn't have the time to reply. I
> >don't think we need a command line option for this. In the "unlikely"
> >event that something is broken in hardware (or software) and we want to
> >disable the contiguous bit, I would rather have a Kconfig option.
> 
> 	How about both? Other users of early_param_on_off() set the default state
> using kconfig. Is that an acceptable choice, or should I remove the command
> line parameter all together? I sort of expect that in a few years time, the
> whole option goes away once it been in use for a while and there are a
> number of V8 implementations widely available.

If for debugging purposes we could get away with just changing
PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC_CONT, I think we can avoid both command line and
Kconfig option. Otherwise only a Kconfig option, I don't see much point
in a command line option (maybe benchmarking).

-- 
Catalin