Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Add initial support for E0PD

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1165 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 05:36:42PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 01:30:40PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > It's largely on the general theory that it's better to carry less out of
> > tree code - there's less diff to manage, less chance of collisions with
> > other work (in either direction), and less pending review to worry about.
> > So long as something represents forward progress I tend to work on the
> > basis of why not rather than why.

> A reason is that once we add the support for disabling kpti based on
> the E0PD feature, this patch may turn out to be slightly different (for
> example, you may add a common has_e0pd() check that is called from
> both unmap_kernel_at_el0() and the E0PD arm64_features[] entry). Given

Hrm, I don't really get that - incremental patches can always be done
(indeed they're often really helpful for people trying to understand how
the code got to be the way it is).  Obviously you can go too far in the
other direction as well, a middle ground is generally best.

> that both patches would be relatively small, I agree with Will that
> there is no rush to merge them independently.

I guess.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel