(request for -mm inclusion) Re: [PATCH v3] arm64, ia64, ppc, s390, sh, tile, um, x86, mm: Remove default gate area

Hi akpm-

One more try before I spam the world with a new thread.  Is this patch
okay for -mm?

So far, it's accumulated:

Acked-by: Nathan Lynch <redacted>
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <redacted>
Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> [in principle]
Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> [for um]
Acked-by: Will Deacon <redacted> [for arm64]

For convenience, I've attached the patch w/ the acked-by's folded in
and with no other changes.

Thanks,
Andy


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref] wrote:

On Jul 18, 2014 3:20 AM, "Richard Weinberger" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Am 18.07.2014 12:14, schrieb Will Deacon:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:47:26PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

The core mm code will provide a default gate area based on
FIXADDR_USER_START and FIXADDR_USER_END if
!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@nod.at>

quoted

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
single
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?

--Andy

quoted

Thanks,
//richard

-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC