On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 03:12:59PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > On 03/22/2021 12:46 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Mar 2021, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/Kconfig b/arch/mips/Kconfig > > > index 160b3a8..4b94ec7 100644 > > > --- a/arch/mips/Kconfig > > > +++ b/arch/mips/Kconfig > > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ config MIPS > > > select ARCH_BINFMT_ELF_STATE if MIPS_FP_SUPPORT > > > select ARCH_HAS_FORTIFY_SOURCE > > > select ARCH_HAS_KCOV > > > + select ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE > > Hmm, documentation on ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE seems rather > > scarce, but based on my guess shouldn't this be "if !EVA"? > > > > Maciej > > I do not quite know what the effect if MIPS EVA (Enhanced Virtual > Addressing) > is set, I saw that ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE should be > restricted > to archs with non-overlapping address ranges. > > I wonder whether MIPS EVA will generate overlapping address ranges? they can overlap in EVA mode. > If yes, it is better to make ARCH_HAS_NON_OVERLAPPING_ADDRESS_SPACE depend > on !EVA on MIPS. Could please add the change ? Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
