linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

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]

Message-ID: <874klpyzi5.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:37:06 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>
Cc:     "open list\:TENSILICA XTENSA PORT \(xtensa\)" 
        <linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org>, Chris Zankel <chris@...kel.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] highmem: fix highmem for xtensa

Max,

On Mon, Nov 16 2020 at 06:47, Max Filippov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:34 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> I agree that the top down mechanics is not really intuitive, but that
>> does not justify the ifdeffery in the generic code.
>
> But then maybe xtensa did the right thing where everyone else just
> copied the not really intuitive implementation? If nobody else cares
> then maybe generic fix_to_virt/virt_to_fix can be changed for positive
> indexing?

Which requires to change 9 architectures instead of one for a feature
which is barely used nowadays and which we rather want to get rid of.

Thanks,

        tglx