From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: richard@nod.at (Richard Weinberger) Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:20:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3] arm64, ia64, ppc, s390, sh, tile, um, x86, mm: Remove default gate area In-Reply-To: <20140718101416.GB1818@arm.com> References: <70f331f59e620dc4e66bd3fa095e6f6b744b532b.1405281639.git.luto@amacapital.net> <20140718101416.GB1818@arm.com> Message-ID: <53C8F4DF.8020103@nod.at> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am 18.07.2014 12:14, schrieb Will Deacon: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:47:26PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>> The core mm code will provide a default gate area based on >>> FIXADDR_USER_START and FIXADDR_USER_END if >>> !defined(__HAVE_ARCH_GATE_AREA) && defined(AT_SYSINFO_EHDR). >>> >>> This default is only useful for ia64. arm64, ppc, s390, sh, tile, >>> 64-bit UML, and x86_32 have their own code just to disable it. arm, >>> 32-bit UML, and x86_64 have gate areas, but they have their own >>> implementations. >>> >>> This gets rid of the default and moves the code into ia64. >>> >>> This should save some code on architectures without a gate area: it's >>> now possible to inline the gate_area functions in the default case. >> >> Can one of you pull this somewhere? Otherwise I can put it somewhere >> stable and ask for -next inclusion, but that seems like overkill for a >> single patch. For the um bits: Acked-by: Richard Weinberger > I'd be happy to take the arm64 part, but it doesn't feel right for mm/* > changes (or changes to other archs) to go via our tree. > > I'm not sure what the best approach is if you want to send this via a single > tree. Maybe you could ask akpm nicely? Going though Andrew's tree sounds sane to me. Thanks, //richard