[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081003054431.33e19339@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 05:44:31 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Implement personality ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:25:52 +0300
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 10:02:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
> >
> > > - /* for MAP_32BIT mappings we force the legact mmap base
> > > */
> > > - if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_IA32) && (flags & MAP_32BIT))
> > > + /* for MAP_32BIT mappings and ADDR_LIMIT_32BIT
> > > personality we force the
> > > + * legact mmap base
> > > + */
> >
> > please use the customary multi-line comment style:
> >
> > /*
> > * Comment .....
> > * ...... goes here:
> > */
> >
> > and you might use the opportunity to fix the s/legact/legacy typo
> > as well.
>
> Ok, I'll fix it.
>
> >
> > but more generally, we already have ADDR_LIMIT_3GB support on x86.
>
> Does ADDR_LIMIT_3GB really work?
if it's broken we should fix it.... not invent a new one.
Also, traditionally often personalities only start at exec() time iirc.
(but I could be wrong on that)
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists