Am 18.07.2014 12:14, schrieb Will Deacon: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 03:47:26PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The core mm code will provide a default gate area based on >>> FIXADDR_USER_START and FIXADDR_USER_END if >>> !defined(__HAVE_ARCH_GATE_AREA) && defined(AT_SYSINFO_EHDR). >>> >>> This default is only useful for ia64. arm64, ppc, s390, sh, tile, >>> 64-bit UML, and x86_32 have their own code just to disable it. arm, >>> 32-bit UML, and x86_64 have gate areas, but they have their own >>> implementations. >>> >>> This gets rid of the default and moves the code into ia64. >>> >>> This should save some code on architectures without a gate area: it's >>> now possible to inline the gate_area functions in the default case. >> >> Can one of you pull this somewhere? Otherwise I can put it somewhere >> stable and ask for -next inclusion, but that seems like overkill for a >> single patch. For the um bits: Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> > I'd be happy to take the arm64 part, but it doesn't feel right for mm/* > changes (or changes to other archs) to go via our tree. > > I'm not sure what the best approach is if you want to send this via a single > tree. Maybe you could ask akpm nicely? Going though Andrew's tree sounds sane to me. Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>