On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:11:26PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 04:14:45PM +0200, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > > Thanks for a lot of valuable input! I've read through all the replies > > and got somewhat lost. What are the changes I need to do to this > > series? > > > > 1. Should I move untagging for memory syscalls back to the generic > > code so other arches would make use of it as well, or should I keep > > the arm64 specific memory syscalls wrappers and address the comments > > on that patch? > > It absolutely needs to move to common code. Having arch code leads > to pointless (often unintentional) semantic difference between > architectures, and lots of boilerplate code. That's fine by me as long as we agree on the semantics (which shouldn't be hard; Khalid already following up). We should probably also move the proposed ABI document [1] into a common place (or part of since we'll have arm64-specifics like prctl() calls to explicitly opt in to memory tagging). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190318163533.26838-1-vincenzo.frascino@xxxxxxx/T/#u -- Catalin _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
