On 17 July 2017 at 15:18, gre...@linuxfoundation.org
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:20:49PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On 20 June 2017 at 08:59, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> > As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it
>> > maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?)
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 01:20:49PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 20 June 2017 at 08:59, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it
> > maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides
> > strictly above the kernel's d
On 20 June 2017 at 08:59, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it
> maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides
> strictly above the kernel's direct mapping of DRAM, but on arm64, this
> is the other way around. For
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 08:59:00AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it
> maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides
> strictly above the kernel's direct mapping of DRAM, but on arm64, this
> is the other
As it turns out, arm64 deviates from other architectures in the way it
maps the VMALLOC region: on most (all?) other architectures, it resides
strictly above the kernel's direct mapping of DRAM, but on arm64, this
is the other way around. For instance, for a 48-bit VA configuration,
we have
modu
5 matches
Mail list logo