Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-07 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:49:19AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:38:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:29:40PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-07 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:49:19AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:38:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:29:40PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-04 Thread Yury Norov
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:38:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:29:40PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > In patch 06beb72fbe23e

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-04 Thread Yury Norov
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 06:38:10PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:29:40PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > In patch 06beb72fbe23e

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-04 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:29:40PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > In patch 06beb72fbe23e ("arm64: introduce mm context flag to keep 32 bit > > > task > > >

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-04 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:29:40PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > > In patch 06beb72fbe23e ("arm64: introduce mm context flag to keep 32 bit > > > task > > >

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-02 Thread Yury Norov
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Hi Yury, > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > In patch 06beb72fbe23e ("arm64: introduce mm context flag to keep 32 bit > > task > > information") you introduce the field flags but use it only for a

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-02 Thread Yury Norov
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 05:39:01PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Hi Yury, > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > In patch 06beb72fbe23e ("arm64: introduce mm context flag to keep 32 bit > > task > > information") you introduce the field flags but use it only for a

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-02 Thread Catalin Marinas
Hi Yury, On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > In patch 06beb72fbe23e ("arm64: introduce mm context flag to keep 32 bit task > information") you introduce the field flags but use it only for a single flag > - > TIF_32BIT. It looks hacky to me for three reasons: > - The

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-02 Thread Catalin Marinas
Hi Yury, On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 05:48:25PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > In patch 06beb72fbe23e ("arm64: introduce mm context flag to keep 32 bit task > information") you introduce the field flags but use it only for a single flag > - > TIF_32BIT. It looks hacky to me for three reasons: > - The

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-01 Thread Yury Norov
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:10:05AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: > > > On Monday 31 July 2017 08:18 PM, Yury Norov wrote: > > - If we start using TIF flags here, we cannot easily add new mm_context > > specific bits because they may mess with TIF ones. > > This one seems convincing

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-08-01 Thread Yury Norov
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:10:05AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote: > > > On Monday 31 July 2017 08:18 PM, Yury Norov wrote: > > - If we start using TIF flags here, we cannot easily add new mm_context > > specific bits because they may mess with TIF ones. > > This one seems convincing

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-07-31 Thread Pratyush Anand
On Monday 31 July 2017 08:18 PM, Yury Norov wrote: - If we start using TIF flags here, we cannot easily add new mm_context specific bits because they may mess with TIF ones. This one seems convincing argument. ATM do you have any mm_context flag which would you like to incorporate?

Re: [PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-07-31 Thread Pratyush Anand
On Monday 31 July 2017 08:18 PM, Yury Norov wrote: - If we start using TIF flags here, we cannot easily add new mm_context specific bits because they may mess with TIF ones. This one seems convincing argument. ATM do you have any mm_context flag which would you like to incorporate?

[PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-07-31 Thread Yury Norov
Hi Pratyush, Catalin In patch 06beb72fbe23e ("arm64: introduce mm context flag to keep 32 bit task information") you introduce the field flags but use it only for a single flag - TIF_32BIT. It looks hacky to me for three reasons: - The flag is introduced for the case where it's impossible to get

[PATCH RFC] arm64: introduce mm_context_t flags

2017-07-31 Thread Yury Norov
Hi Pratyush, Catalin In patch 06beb72fbe23e ("arm64: introduce mm context flag to keep 32 bit task information") you introduce the field flags but use it only for a single flag - TIF_32BIT. It looks hacky to me for three reasons: - The flag is introduced for the case where it's impossible to get