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? Keep them generic again but make sure we get agreement with Khalid on the actual ABI implications for sparc. > 2. Should I make untagging opt-in and controlled by a command line argument? Opt-in, yes, but per task rather than kernel command line option. prctl() is a possibility of opting in. > 3. Should I "add Documentation/core-api/user-addresses.rst to describe > proper care and handling of user space pointers with untagged_addr(), > with examples based on all the cases seen so far in this series"? > Which examples specifically should it cover? I think we can leave 3 for now as not too urgent. What I'd like is for Vincenzo's TBI user ABI document to go into a more common place since we can expand it to cover both sparc and arm64. We'd need an arm64-specific doc as well for things like prctl() and later MTE that sparc may support differently. -- Catalin _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
