From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf0-f198.google.com (mail-pf0-f198.google.com [209.85.192.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3FE6B05A8 for ; Wed, 9 May 2018 21:24:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pf0-f198.google.com with SMTP id g1-v6so275245pfh.19 for ; Wed, 09 May 2018 18:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n6si22621111pfi.360.2018.05.09.18.24.30 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 09 May 2018 18:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 01:24:26 +0000 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: provide a fallback for PAGE_KERNEL_RO for architectures Message-ID: <20180510012426.GA27853@wotan.suse.de> References: <20180428001526.22475-1-mcgrof@kernel.org> <20180502151113.GB27853@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180502151113.GB27853@wotan.suse.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Arnd Bergmann , Matthew Wilcox , Greg KH , Linux-Arch , Linux FS Devel , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-m68k On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 03:11:13PM +0000, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:08:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Luis, > > > > On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > Some architectures do not define PAGE_KERNEL_RO, best we can do > > > for them is to provide a fallback onto PAGE_KERNEL. Remove the > > > hack from the firmware loader and move it onto the asm-generic > > > header, and document while at it the affected architectures > > > which do not have a PAGE_KERNEL_RO: > > > > > > o alpha > > > o ia64 > > > o m68k > > > o mips > > > o sparc64 > > > o sparc > > > > > > Blessed-by: 0-day > > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez > > > > I believe the "best we can do" is to add the missing definitions for the > > architectures where the hardware does support it? > > True, but we cannot wait for every architecture to implement a feature to then > such generics upstream, Come to think of it your point was the wording. I changed it to not be as misleading. Luis