On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 06:34:31PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 August 2016 at 17:06, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> > And start agitating against pointer tagging in general.
>
> Why would you want to do that when the architecture has
> specific support for it?
Apart from the
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 04:40:29PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > ARMv8.2 bumps the maximum address limit to 52 bits [1]. Architecturally,
> > > only the upper 8 bits of address are reserved for tagging (and this has
> > > been the case since the original ARMv8-A release), and all other bits
> >
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 04:03:07PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > ARM64 platforms with > 512GB between the lowest and highest RAM
> > addresses end up getting their amount of usable memory truncated if
> > the kernel is built for 39-bit VA (which is what currently happens for
> > Debian kernels). F
Hi all,
(Sent to cross-distro with debian-arm on cc.)
We have an 'interesting' situation ahead of us, or indeed some of us
have already fallen into it:
ARM64 platforms with > 512GB between the lowest and highest RAM
addresses end up getting their amount of usable memory truncated if
the kernel i
4 matches
Mail list logo
