linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: redefine PTRS_PER_PGD/PTRS_PER_PMD/PTRS_PER

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 20:36:33 +0800
From:   sh liu <liush.damon@...il.com>
To:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
Cc:     palmer@...ive.com, sorear2@...il.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu,
        anup.patel@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rppt@...ux.ibm.com, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RISC-V: redefine PTRS_PER_PGD/PTRS_PER_PMD/PTRS_PER_PTE

I think the previous description is unclear, and it is difficult for
readers to understand the meaning of these macros, because I never
understand. So I submitted this patch with reference to the definition
of arm. I think this way can make the reader easier to understand, and
I also think that this definition is more reasonable.

2019-06-29 2:52 GMT+08:00, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019, damon wrote:
>
>> Use the number of addresses to define the relevant macros.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: damon <liush.damon@...il.com>
>
> This patch looks reasonable to me.  But what's missing from the
> description is the motivation.  Is this a prerequisite for another patch
> that you're planning to post?  Or because you think this is clearer than
> the original?  Or something else?  etc.
>
>
> - Paul
>