Thread (25 messages) 25 messages, 9 authors, 2017-03-06

Re: [PATCHv3 33/33] mm, x86: introduce PR_SET_MAX_VADDR and PR_GET_MAX_VADDR

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: 2017-02-17 21:10:32
Also in: linux-arch, linux-mm, lkml

Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Dave Hansen [off-list ref] wrote:
Is this likely to break anything in practice?  Nah.  But it would nice
to avoid it.
So I go the other way: what *I* would like to avoid is odd code that
is hard to follow. I'd much rather make the code be simple and the
rules be straightforward, and not introduce that complicated
"different address limits" thing at all.

Then, _if_ we ever find a case where it makes a difference, we could
go the more complex route. But not first implementation, and not
without a real example of why we shouldn't just keep things simple.

              Linus

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help