From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEA1844C6C; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 01:39:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734053976; cv=none; b=gipHYLeu8gRnRDWvJlvqXDhUjpN7qo7OiX5z7wS79A32dPnR6YBprZxDuYTefBu6EICz1n4to91yMwCsXqhvIvDkEqSsOyNOraJbdH+KZU3dBmX0dM1YeSyqz7CQ/blEFoJimRYCfi9pEg/O0hlU2nDVUPwwk06jck3Vl/iSafA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734053976; c=relaxed/simple; bh=z6KasiqXW9OocT/gPdXD8wxFCgxz3hJU5rxa3NS7ujM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=B7AtFy2Ac2um3oTsdQ+86tTvq9Avs4e8I5sC6wAb1R4rH3G+LzdiBOe86DGtEayXjsO9X1cSHGXSPPt6jzX4HVERMM1F3f3xFGtM7ZkSDi0QoRpyhTq3Fy8+9GGKit8YwTAsKBp3iR1eDUNhx+V/1E42sjsrp66zZHx04eFhkeM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b=NOajGzF7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="NOajGzF7" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA84DC4CECE; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 01:39:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1734053976; bh=z6KasiqXW9OocT/gPdXD8wxFCgxz3hJU5rxa3NS7ujM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=NOajGzF7Oghi2j823OVBOAGjMfDE2y8sqhBtABteyi+xNwCVBGrHLGBc4kP8k/ZzS nGpVqOiOxYmCXtpYVq8CDh3d/Emvq9T/1xFLC/6g4wNbedpjpYuIv/cuTxF0CeV0MY ibJbSfQIh1u6+D2zMIFRD+W8TWrIVtCfqGegBRio= Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 17:39:34 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: "Liam R. Howlett" Cc: Kalesh Singh , lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com, vbabka@suse.cz, yang@os.amperecomputing.com, riel@surriel.com, david@redhat.com, minchan@kernel.org, jyescas@google.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, dalias@libc.org, glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de, davem@davemloft.net, andreas@gaisler.com, tglx@linutronix.de, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, chris@zankel.net, jcmvbkbc@gmail.com, bhelgaas@google.com, jason.andryuk@amd.com, leitao@debian.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-team@android.com, android-mm@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH mm-unstable v2 06/16] mm: csky: Introduce arch_mmap_hint() Message-Id: <20241212173934.4dc429716acd4c71a76e15c2@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20241211232754.1583023-1-kaleshsingh@google.com> <20241211232754.1583023-7-kaleshsingh@google.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.8.0beta1 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:40:10 -0500 "Liam R. Howlett" wrote: > * Kalesh Singh [241211 18:28]: > > Introduce csky arch_mmap_hint() and define HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_HINT. > > This is a preparatory patch, no functional change is introduced. > > This also looks like it has changed the validation order and potentially > introduced functional changes? > > All these stem from the same cloned code (sparc32 iirc), but were not > updated when the cloned code was updated. This is why I am against > arch_* code. We should find a better way to unify the code so that > there is nothing different. You seem to have gotten some of the shared > code together, but some still exists. > > In the addresses, there are upper and lower limits, and sometimes > "colours". Could we not just define the upper/lower limits in each arch > and if colour is used? Maybe this is complicated with 32/64 handled > both in the 64 bit code. > > Is there any plan to unite this code further? > > We have had errors for many years in cloned but not updated code. I > really wish there was more information in the cover letter on what is > going on here. I'd like to try and reduce the arch_ code to, basically > nothing. > > I was also disappointed that I wasn't Cc'ed because I've spent a lot of > time in this code and this area. I am probably the last one to crawl > through and change any of this. Thanks, I removed this version of this series from mm-unstable.