From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 27/31] arm64: Loadable modules
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:23:21 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.5.0; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
References: <1344966752-16102-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <1344966752-16102-28-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1344966752-16102-28-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201208151523.21447.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 743
Lines: 20

On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> +
> +void *module_alloc(unsigned long size)
> +{
> +       return __vmalloc_node_range(size, 1, MODULES_VADDR, MODULES_END,
> +                                   GFP_KERNEL, PAGE_KERNEL_EXEC, -1,
> +                                   __builtin_return_address(0));
> +}
> +

What is the reason for using a separate virtual address range for the
modules instead of falling back to the default module_alloc function
that uses vmalloc_exec()?

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/