On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:40:10 -0500 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@xxxxxxxxxx> [241211 18:28]: > > Introduce csky arch_mmap_hint() and define HAVE_ARCH_MMAP_HINT. > > This is a preparatory patch, no functional change is introduced. > > This also looks like it has changed the validation order and potentially > introduced functional changes? > > All these stem from the same cloned code (sparc32 iirc), but were not > updated when the cloned code was updated. This is why I am against > arch_* code. We should find a better way to unify the code so that > there is nothing different. You seem to have gotten some of the shared > code together, but some still exists. > > In the addresses, there are upper and lower limits, and sometimes > "colours". Could we not just define the upper/lower limits in each arch > and if colour is used? Maybe this is complicated with 32/64 handled > both in the 64 bit code. > > Is there any plan to unite this code further? > > We have had errors for many years in cloned but not updated code. I > really wish there was more information in the cover letter on what is > going on here. I'd like to try and reduce the arch_ code to, basically > nothing. > > I was also disappointed that I wasn't Cc'ed because I've spent a lot of > time in this code and this area. I am probably the last one to crawl > through and change any of this. Thanks, I removed this version of this series from mm-unstable.
