From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752159AbdCDN7l (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Mar 2017 08:59:41 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60882 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751370AbdCDN7k (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Mar 2017 08:59:40 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 21:59:35 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Borislav Petkov Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, yinghai@kernel.org, anderson@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org, thgarnie@google.com, kuleshovmail@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] x86: Introduce a new constant KERNEL_MAPPING_SIZE Message-ID: <20170304135935.GB12083@x1> References: <20170303120616.GE18391@x1> <20170303121614.7cgyb6gfhtgmcide@pd.tnic> <20170303125213.GF18391@x1> <20170303131152.GG18391@x1> <20170303142830.pkkvn2iz7dwceei6@pd.tnic> <20170303150751.GH18391@x1> <20170303150857.GI18391@x1> <20170303152319.yensbclmz6uomoyy@pd.tnic> <20170304101037.GA12083@x1> <20170304115508.l4dhlylvkncsow53@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170304115508.l4dhlylvkncsow53@pd.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Sat, 04 Mar 2017 13:59:40 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/04/17 at 12:55pm, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 06:10:37PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > > BUT(!), don't take my word for it. Rather, do what the maintainers > > > propose. Who knows, they might have a much better idea. > > > > Sorry about that. Just think your words are very convincing on removing > > people's doubt if it's risky to shrink kernel modules space to 1G. Will > > remove the words mentioning you said it since you don't like it. Didn't > > realize that, no offence. > > No, this is not what I mean at all! > > I'm saying, I tried to review your patches and I don't like the end > result because it adds more complexity. And the reason(s) for it are not > persuading me enough to make me say: "yeah, this is a good thing, I want > it." > > But this is only my opinion. That's all. The final decision is in the > hands of the x86 maintainers. Got it, sorry for the misunderstanding. I really appreciate your reviewing, great comments and suggestions. Glad to see that now we don't hesitate to shrink kernel modules area to 1G after discussion. I will ping Ingo to ask if he has any suggestion since he has been taking care of the KERNEL_IMAGE_SIZE value changing. Thanks Baoquan