On 21.03.22 19:27, Catalin Marinas wrote:

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 05:44:05PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 04:07:48PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:

quoted

So the example you gave cannot possibly have that bit set. From what I
understand, it should be fine. But I have no real preference: I can also
just stick to the original patch, whatever you prefer.

I think I'd prefer to stay on the safe side and stick with bit 2 as you
originally proposed. If we need to support crazy numbers of swapfiles
in future then we can revisit the idea of allocating bit 1.

Sounds fine to me. David, feel free to keep my reviewed-by on the
original patch.

Thanks both, I'll add the following comment to the patch:

"Note that we might be able to reuse bit 1, but reusing bit 1 turned out
 problematic in the past for PROT_NONE handling; so let's play safe and
 use another bit."


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel