Hi Christophe, On 11/24/20 6:53 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 24/11/2020 à 01:29, Dmitry Safonov a écrit : >> v2 Changes: >> - Rename user_landing to vdso_base as it tracks vDSO VMA start address, >> rather than the explicit address to land (Andy) >> - Reword and don't use "new-execed" and "new-born" task (Andy) >> - Fix failures reported by build robot >> >> Started from discussion [1], where was noted that currently a couple of >> architectures support mremap() for vdso/sigpage, but not munmap(). >> If an application maps something on the ex-place of vdso/sigpage, >> later after processing signal it will land there (good luck!) >> >> Patches set is based on linux-next (next-20201123) and it depends on >> changes in x86/cleanups (those reclaim TIF_IA32/TIF_X32) and also >> on my changes in akpm (fixing several mremap() issues). > > I have a series that cleans up VDSO init on powerpc and migrates powerpc > to _install_special_mapping() (patch 10 of the series). > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=204396&state=%2A&archive=both > > > I'm wondering how we should coordinate with your series for merging. > > I guess your series will also imply removal of arch_unmap() ? see > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.10-rc4/source/arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu_context.h#L262
I think our series intersect only in that moment where I re-introduce arch_setup_additional_pages() parameters. So, in theory we could minimize the conflicts by merging both series in parallel and cleanup the result by moving to generic vdso_base on the top, what do you think? Thanks, Dmitry