From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 16:10:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: mmu: set the contiguous for kernel mappings when appropriate In-Reply-To: References: <1476123164-10532-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> <20161011074419.GA20213@remoulade> Message-ID: <20161011151058.GB25865@remoulade> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 09:21:14AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 11 October 2016 at 08:44, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 07:12:44PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > Not a big deal, but the 'block' part here and elsewhere is now arguably > > misleading (given 'block' is an architectural term). > > > > I haven't come up with a better term, so again, not a big deal. ;) > > Indeed. I could simply call it 'allow_cont_mappings' in the context of > this function, and keep the call below as is. I'd prefer that the naming is consistent across functions, even if it's left as-is (and arguably cont makes it sounds like it doesn't cover block mappings). So unless we find a suitably-equipped thesaurus, as-is is probably fine. Thanks, Mark.