[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200511151120.GA28634@lst.de>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 17:11:20 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org,
"open list:QUALCOMM HEXAGON..." <linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
"open list:BROADCOM NVRAM DRIVER" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
Openrisc <openrisc@...ts.librecores.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT (xtensa)"
<linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/31] module: move the set_fs hack for
flush_icache_range to m68k
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:40:39AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 9:57 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> >
> > flush_icache_range generally operates on kernel addresses, but for some
> > reason m68k needed a set_fs override. Move that into the m68k code
> > insted of keeping it in the module loader.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
>
> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
> Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Btw, do you know what part of flush_icache_range relied on set_fs?
Do any of the m68k maintainers have an idea how to handle that in
a nicer way when we can split the implementations?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists