Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210225080453.1314-1-alex@ghiti.fr> <20210225080453.1314-3-alex@ghiti.fr>
 <5279e97c-3841-717c-2a16-c249a61573f9@redhat.com> <7d9036d9-488b-47cc-4673-1b10c11baad0@ghiti.fr>
 <CAK8P3a3mVDwJG6k7PZEKkteszujP06cJf8Zqhq43F0rNsU=h4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <236a9788-8093-9876-a024-b0ad0d672c72@ghiti.fr> <CAK8P3a1+vSoEBqHPzj9S07B7h-Xuwvccpsh1pnn+1xJmS3UdbA@mail.gmail.com>
 <50109729-9a86-6b49-b608-dd5c8eb2d88e@ghiti.fr>
In-Reply-To: <50109729-9a86-6b49-b608-dd5c8eb2d88e@ghiti.fr>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Sat, 13 Mar 2021 23:34:59 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1Nh4KUD85Fg_vFHf2fLMOqZThBgzyduLgfEtjGf-pm4g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Documentation: riscv: Add documentation that
 describes the VM layout
To:     Alexandre Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 9:23 AM Alex Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr> wrote:
>
> Yes I considered it...when you re-proposed it :) I'm not opposed to your
> solution in the vmalloc region but I can't find any advantage over the
> current solution, are there ? That would harmonize with Linus's work,
> but then we'd be quite different from x86 address space.
>
> And by the way, thanks for having suggested the current solution in a
> previous conversation :)

Ah, I really need to keep track better of what I already commented on...

      Arnd