[PATCH v3] arm64, ia64, ppc, s390, sh, tile, um, x86, mm: Remove default gate area

Andy Lutomirski luto at amacapital.net
Sat Jul 19 02:53:14 EST 2014

On Jul 18, 2014 3:20 AM, "Richard Weinberger" <richard at nod.at> wrote:
> 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 <luto at amacapital.net>
> >>> The core mm code will provide a default gate area based on
> >>> !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 <richard at nod.at>
> > 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
> > tree. Maybe you could ask akpm nicely?
> Going though Andrew's tree sounds sane to me.

Splitting this will be annoying: I'd probably have to add a flag asking for
the new behavior, update all the arches, then remove the flag.  The chance
of screwing up bisectability in the process seems pretty high.  This seems
like overkill for a patch that mostly deletes code.

Akpm, can you take this?


> Thanks,
> //richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/attachments/20140718/4e60b796/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list