On 1/26/21 12:07 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:58:13AM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 1/25/21 5:56 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:09:57PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
On 1/25/21 2:59 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 11:58:13AM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 1/25/21 5:56 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:09:57PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> >> On 1/25/21 2:59 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:36:34PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wr
On 1/25/21 5:56 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:09:57PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 1/25/21 2:59 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:36:34PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
On 1/25/21 1:02 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22,
Hi Vincenzo,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:56:40PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> Currently, the __is_lm_address() check just masks out the top 12 bits
> of the address, but if they are 0, it still yields a true result.
> This has as a side effect that virt_addr_valid() returns true even for
> inv
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:09:57PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 1/25/21 2:59 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:36:34PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> >> On 1/25/21 1:02 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:56:40PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:59:12PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:36:34PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > On 1/25/21 1:02 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:56:40PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> > > This patch itself looks fine, but it's not
On 1/25/21 2:59 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:36:34PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 1/25/21 1:02 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:56:40PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
Currently, the __is_lm_address() check just masks out the top 12
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 02:36:34PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 1/25/21 1:02 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:56:40PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> >> Currently, the __is_lm_address() check just masks out the top 12 bits
> >> of the address, but if they are 0, it s
Hi Mark,
On 1/25/21 1:02 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Vincenzo,
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 03:56:40PM +, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> Currently, the __is_lm_address() check just masks out the top 12 bits
>> of the address, but if they are 0, it still yields a true result.
>> This has as a sid
Currently, the __is_lm_address() check just masks out the top 12 bits
of the address, but if they are 0, it still yields a true result.
This has as a side effect that virt_addr_valid() returns true even for
invalid virtual addresses (e.g. 0x0).
Improve the detection checking that it's actually a k
10 matches
Mail list logo