On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 04:54:05AM +0800, Yangyu Chen wrote:
> Another concern is that if we can't make this decision in time to catch up
> with v6.9 we don't want some bad things to happen as a large number of sv48
> machines might appear this year and they may run on the next v6.9 LTS
> kernel,
On 2024/3/1 03:21, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 04:10:03 PST (-0800), c...@cyyself.name wrote:
This patch has not been reviewed for more than a month. There is
another patch that did the same fix but in another way and still has
not been reviewed like this. I'm here to do a comp
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 04:10:03 PST (-0800), c...@cyyself.name wrote:
This patch has not been reviewed for more than a month. There is another patch
that did the same fix but in another way and still has not been reviewed like
this. I'm here to do a comparison of some choices briefly to let the ma
This patch has not been reviewed for more than a month. There is another patch
that did the same fix but in another way and still has not been reviewed like
this. I'm here to do a comparison of some choices briefly to let the maintainer
understand the issues and the solutions. I think it's time
Previous patch series[1] changes a mmap behavior that treats the hint
address as the upper bound of the mmap address range. The motivation of the
previous patch series is that some user space software may assume 48-bit
address space and use higher bits to encode some information, which may
collide
