Re: [PATCH v3 3/7] mm: Add PG_arch_3 page flag
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Date: 2022-09-20 16:59:19
Also in:
kvm, kvmarm, oe-kbuild-all
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 05:33:42PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:39:47 +0100, Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 07:12:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:quoted
On Mon, 05 Sep 2022 18:01:55 +0100, Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Peter, please let me know if you want to pick this series up together with your other KVM patches. Otherwise I can post it separately, it's worth merging it on its own as it clarifies the page flag vs tag setting ordering.I'm looking at queuing this, but I'm confused by this comment. Do I need to pick this as part of the series? Or is this an independent thing (my hunch is that it is actually required not to break other architectures...).This series series (at least the first patches) won't apply cleanly on top of 6.0-rc1 and, of course, we shouldn't break other architectures. I can repost the whole series but I don't have the setup to test the MAP_SHARED KVM option (unless Peter plans to post it soon).I don't feel brave enough to take a series affecting all architectures
It shouldn't affect the others, the only change is that PG_arch_2 is now only defined for arm64 but no other architecture is using it. The problem with loongarch is that it doesn't have enough spare bits in page->flags and even without any patches I think it's broken with the right value for NR_CPUS.
so late in the game, and the whole thing had very little arm64 exposure. The latest QEMU doesn't seem to work anymore, so I don't have any MTE-capable emulation (and using the FVP remotely is a pain in the proverbial neck). I'll come back to this after the merge window, should Peter decide to respin the series.
It makes sense. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel