On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Joel Fernandes <joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:00:11PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: [...] >> >> My worry is that some architecture has to allocate page table differently >> depending on virtual address (due to aliasing or something). Original page >> table was allocated for one virtual address and moving the page table to >> different spot in virtual address space may break the invariant. >> >> > Also the clean up of the argument that you're proposing is a bit out of scope >> > of this patch but yeah we could clean it up in a separate patch if needed. I >> > don't feel too strongly about that. It seems cosmetic and in the future if >> > the address that's passed in is needed, then the architecture can use it. >> >> Please, do. This should be pretty mechanical change, but it will help to >> make sure that none of obscure architecture will be broken by the change. >> > > The thing is its quite a lot of change, I wrote a coccinelle script to do it > tree wide, following is the diffstat: > 48 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-) > > Imagine then having to add the address argument back in the future in case > its ever needed. Is it really worth doing it? Anyway I confirmed that the > address is NOT used for anything at the moment so your fears of the > optimization doing anything wonky really don't exist at the moment. I really > feel this is unnecessary but I am Ok with others agree the second arg to > pte_alloc should be removed in light of this change. Andrew, what do you > think? I meant to say here, "I am Ok if others agree the second arg to pte_alloc should be removed", but I would really like some input from the others as well on what they think.
