Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Limit 2/4M size calculation to x86_32
From: Stefan Bader
Date: Fri Aug 31 2012 - 12:56:52 EST
On 08/31/2012 09:41 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I'm not saying we shouldn't patch the regression, but this house of cards
*needs* to be replaced with something robust and correct by construction.
Then I did misunderstand/-interpret you about the former part and we actually
are agreeing on the whole topic. Sorry about that. So the re-post just should
serve as a reminder as the last comment here was quite a while ago.
Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Avi wrote:
The fact that the check is only done on i386 and not on x86_64 may come
from one of
- an oversight - by the time x86_64 processors came along, the problem
with conflicting sizes was resolved - the whole thing is bogus
Copying hpa who may be in a position to find out which.
Talking to hpa it is more of the last. For more than just this reason.
Since the whole area of initial page tables seems to be rather sensitive
and easy to break there have been discussions and plans to come up with a
rewrite to improve on all those shortcomings.
The detail I am not agreeing with hpa is the fixup for the immediate
breakage at head. IMO right now the code just has regressed and that should
be fixed as soon as possible. Plus doing a specific and small fix allows
that to be applicable to stable (which again still depends on things being
upstream).
Hence the re-send in the hope that on the larger scale the may be agreement
on the immediate fix. I am not doubting the usefulness or need of a better
solution, but I think that having a remedy of the current situation just
until then has enough benefit to be considered.
-Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/