On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 03:53:06PM +0100, Dave P Martin wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 02:02:17PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:25:29AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > > #endif /* _UAPI__ASM_HWCAP_H */ > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..4776b43 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/mman.h > > > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */ > > > +#ifndef _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H > > > +#define _UAPI__ASM_MMAN_H > > > + > > > +#include <asm-generic/mman.h> > > > + > > > +#define PROT_BTI_GUARDED 0x10 /* BTI guarded page */ > > > > From prior discussions, I thought this would be PROT_BTI, without the > > _GUARDED suffix. Do we really need that? > > > > AFAICT, all other PROT_* definitions only have a single underscore, and > > the existing arch-specific flags are PROT_ADI on sparc, and PROT_SAO on > > powerpc. > > No strong opinon. I was trying to make the name less obscure, but I'm > equally happy with PROT_BTI if people prefer that. I prefer PROT_BTI as well. We are going to add a PROT_MTE at some point (and a VM_ARM64_MTE in the high VMA flag bits). -- Catalin
