linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] ARM: at91: Fix: Change internal SRAM memory type to "MT_MEMORY

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <B256D81BAE5131468A838E5D7A243641687BB93C@penmbx01>
Date:	Fri, 24 May 2013 07:11:04 +0000
From:	"Yang, Wenyou" <Wenyou.Yang@...el.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"plagnioj@...osoft.com" <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	"Ferre, Nicolas" <Nicolas.FERRE@...el.com>,
	"linux@...im.org.za" <linux@...im.org.za>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: at91: Fix: Change internal SRAM memory type to
	"MT_MEMORY_SO"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux@....linux.org.uk]
> Sent: 2013年5月22日 8:15
> To: Yang, Wenyou
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> plagnioj@...osoft.com; Ferre, Nicolas; linux@...im.org.za
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: at91: Fix: Change internal SRAM memory type to
> "MT_MEMORY_SO"
> 
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:06:19AM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang@...el.com>
> 
> This needs more of a description.  Also, for a single patch, it's silly
> to send two mails, the first being a cover which has a little more
> information in it about the patch than the patch itself.
> 
> You need to explain _why_ you're making this change.  What I want to see
> is that you've thought about the implications of this - particularly that
> you know that strongly ordered memory does *not* imply any ordering with
> any other memory types.
> 
> In other words, I want to know that this change is not a bodge but there's
> a real reason behind it.
The story is: for sama5d3x with Cortex-A5 core, if not so, when copying code snippet to the internal SRAM, then jump to run this code, but fail to run.
So, refer to other code(such as omap4), do such change. I also test it on at91sam9 with 926ej-s core.
As what you said, I am digging it. Thank you very much.

Best Regards,
Wenyou Yang