From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com (mail-qg0-f42.google.com [209.85.192.42]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E956B0257 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 20:46:02 -0500 (EST) Received: by qgeb1 with SMTP id b1so104650891qge.1 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:46:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com (mail-qg0-x232.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r66si15443419qkl.103.2015.12.04.17.46.02 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:46:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by qgeb1 with SMTP id b1so104650697qge.1 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:46:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151204170113.c5cd8a9cc9658c491851bc33@linux-foundation.org> References: <201512050045.l2G9WhTi%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <20151204151424.e73641da44c61f20f10d93e9@linux-foundation.org> <20151204151913.166e5cb795359ff1a53d26ac@linux-foundation.org> <20151204170113.c5cd8a9cc9658c491851bc33@linux-foundation.org> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:46:01 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [linux-next:master 4174/4356] kernel/built-in.o:undefined reference to `mmap_rnd_bits' From: Daniel Cashman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: kbuild test robot , kbuild-all@01.org, Mark Brown , Linux Memory Management List , dcashman@android.com > > I've left the question of whether or not > > the value should be the number of randomized bits (current situation) > > or the size of the address space chunk affected up to akpm@. > > Does it matter much? It can always be changed later if it proves to be > a problem. Motivation for the suggestions was to get rid of the page size consideration in setting default min/max Kconfig values to reduce line count, otherwise both options are about equivalent. > > Please let me know what else should be done in v6 to keep these in. > > It sounds like all we need to do at present is to fix this build error? My apologies, I thought this was the one related to CONFIG_MMU=n. I've reproduced locally and will look into this on Monday. Thank You, Dan On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 16:56:19 -0800 Daniel Cashman wrote: > >> I've left the question of whether or not >> the value should be the number of randomized bits (current situation) >> or the size of the address space chunk affected up to akpm@. > > Does it matter much? It can always be changed later if it proves to be > a problem. > >> Please let me know what else should be done in v6 to keep these in. > > It sounds like all we need to do at present is to fix this build error? -- Dan Cashman -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org