On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 19:10:07 +0100 Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > ipc/shm.c | 2 ++ > > > mm/madvise.c | 2 ++ > > > mm/mempolicy.c | 5 +++++ > > > mm/migrate.c | 1 + > > > mm/mincore.c | 2 ++ > > > mm/mlock.c | 5 +++++ > > > mm/mmap.c | 7 +++++++ > > > mm/mprotect.c | 1 + > > > mm/mremap.c | 2 ++ > > > mm/msync.c | 2 ++ > > > 10 files changed, 29 insertions(+) > > > > I wonder whether it's better to keep these as wrappers in the arm64 > > code. > > I don't think I understand what you propose, could you elaborate? I believe Catalin is saying that instead of placing things like: @@ -1593,6 +1593,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE3(shmat, int, shmid, char __user *, shmaddr, int, shmflg) unsigned long ret; long err; + shmaddr = untagged_addr(shmaddr); To instead have the shmaddr set to the untagged_addr() before calling the system call, and passing the untagged addr to the system call, as that goes through the arm64 architecture specific code first. -- Steve _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
