On 04.01.17 13:56:39, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > Given that you are touching arch/arm/ as well as arch/arm64, could you > explain why only arm64 needs this treatment? Is it simply because we > don't have NUMA support there?
I haven't considered a solution for arch/arm yet. The fixes are independent. But if that fix would be an excepted solution, it could be implemented for arm then too. But as you said, since probably only NUMA is affected, we might not need it there. -Robert
