On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:50:33AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > On most architectures this should be const now, only very few ever
> > modify it.
>
> Will make it a 'static const pgprot_t protection_map[16] __ro_after_init'
> on platforms that do not change the protection_map[] even during
On 6/24/22 10:42, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:13:13AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> vm_get_page_prot(), in order for it to be reused on platforms that do not
>> require custom implementation. Finally, ARCH_HAS_VM_GET_PAGE_PROT can just
>> be dropped, as all platfor
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 10:13:13AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> vm_get_page_prot(), in order for it to be reused on platforms that do not
> require custom implementation. Finally, ARCH_HAS_VM_GET_PAGE_PROT can just
> be dropped, as all platforms now define and export vm_get_page_prot(), via
>
__SXXX/__PXXX macros is an unnecessary abstraction layer in creating the
generic protection_map[] array which is used for vm_get_page_prot(). This
abstraction layer can be avoided, if the platforms just define the array
protection_map[] for all possible vm_flags access permission combinations
and a
