From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk ([2607:5300:60:148a::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1n3S0w-006bJK-PA for linux-um@lists.infradead.org; Sat, 01 Jan 2022 00:12:52 +0000 Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2022 00:12:24 +0000 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: remove set_fs for UML Message-ID: References: <20211215165612.554426-1-hch@lst.de> <1202521211.191037.1640120703350.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1202521211.191037.1640120703350.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "linux-um" Errors-To: linux-um-bounces+geert=linux-m68k.org@lists.infradead.org To: Richard Weinberger Cc: hch , anton ivanov , x86 , linux-um , linux-kernel On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:05:03PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Christoph, > = > ----- Urspr=FCngliche Mail ----- > > Von: "hch" > > An: "richard" , "anton ivanov" > > CC: "x86" , "linux-um" , = "linux-kernel" > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. Dezember 2021 17:56:10 > > Betreff: remove set_fs for UML > = > > Hi Richard and Anton, > > = > > this series removes address space overrides using set_fs for UML. > > = > > Diffstat: > > um/Kconfig | 1 - > > um/include/asm/thread_info.h | 4 ---- > > um/include/asm/uaccess.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++-- > > um/kernel/skas/uaccess.c | 25 ------------------------- > > x86/include/asm/mtrr.h | 8 +------- > > x86/kernel/setup.c | 7 ++++++- > > x86/um/asm/segment.h | 8 -------- > > 7 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) > = > So far UML seems to work with these changes applied. :-) > I have applied both patches to my UML tree for now, I assume x86 maintain= ers are fine with > patch 1/2? Hmmm... AFAICS, the right thing to do would be to have __get_kernel_nofault and __put_kernel_nofault in arch/x86/um/asm/something. The question is how to avoid duplicating the x86 implementation of those (along with the asm-go= to fun, etc.)... But Christoph is right, it's not a new problem. As far as I'm concerned, that series looks fine. _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um