Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230629184151.888604958@linuxfoundation.org> <CA+G9fYsM2s3q1k=+wHszvNbkKbHGe1pskkffWvaGXjYrp6qR=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whaO3RZmKj8NDjs4f6JEwuwQWWesOfFu-URzOqTkyPoxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2023063001-overlying-browse-de1a@gregkh> <0b2aefa4-7407-4936-6604-dedfb1614483@gmx.de>
 <5fd98a09-4792-1433-752d-029ae3545168@gmx.de> <CAHk-=wiHs1cL2Fb90NXVhtQsMuu+OLHB4rSDsPVe0ALmbvZXZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wj=0jkhj2=HkHVdezvuzV-djLsnyeE5zFfnXxgtS2MXFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9b35a19d-800c-f9f9-6b45-cf2038ef235f@roeck-us.net> <CAHk-=wgdC6RROG145_YB5yWoNtBQ0Xsrhdcu2TMAFTw52U2E0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <2a2387bf-f589-6856-3583-d3d848a17d34@roeck-us.net> <CAHk-=wgczy0dxK9vg-YWbq6YLP2gP8ix7Ys9K+Mr=S2NEj+hGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c21e8e95-3353-fc57-87fd-271b2c9cc000@roeck-us.net> <CAHk-=wj+F8oGK_Hx6YSPJpwL-xyL+-q2SxtxYE0abtZa_jSkLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7146f74d-8638-46c7-8e8c-15abc97a379f@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <7146f74d-8638-46c7-8e8c-15abc97a379f@gmx.de>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2023 09:49:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjqp09i1053vqFc41Ftegkrh0pD+MKY-3ptdYu3FUh6Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.4 00/28] 6.4.1-rc1 review - hppa argument list too long
To:     Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
Cc:     Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-parisc <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        John David Anglin <dave.anglin@bell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 3 Jul 2023 at 00:08, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Great, that patch fixes it!

Yeah, I was pretty sure this was it, but it's good to have it
confirmed. Committed.

> I wonder if you want to
> #define VM_STACK_EARLY VM_GROWSDOWN
> even for the case where the stack grows down too (instead of 0),
> just to make clear that in both cases the stack goes downwards initially.

No, that wouldn't work for the simple reason that the special bits in
VM_STACK_INCOMPLETE_SETUP are always cleared after the stack setup is
done.

So if we added VM_GROWSDOWN to those early bits in general, the bit
would then be cleared even when that wasn't the intent.

Yes, yes, we could change the VM_STACK_INCOMPLETE_SETUP logic to only
clear some of the bits in the end, but the end result would be
practically the same: we'd still have to do different things for
grows-up vs grows-down cases, so the difference might as well be here
in the VM_STACK_EARLY bit.

                 Linus