Re: Enhancing semantics with memremap() - aliasing with memremap()
From: Kani, Toshimitsu
Date: Tue May 31 2016 - 20:03:48 EST
On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 19:27 +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 07:25:14PM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:58:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:36:42PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is it a good time for that now? I would hope identifying proper
> > > > aliasing uses for memremap() might be a bit easier now than for
> > > > ioremap() given its not used as widely. It may be an easier target
> > > > to also write some grammar rules for it as well.
> > >Â
> > > So you want an explicit opt-in flag to allow aliasing?ÂÂSounds fine to
> > > me.
> > ÂÂ
> > Yup! Can the default then safely already be no-aliasing then?
> Or if aliasing is truly not needed as often a different API, this
> maybe useful later if we pick up again module namespace stuff.
I agree that we should be able to change memremap() to fail an aliasing
request since it's a relatively new interface. Âioremap() needs to start
from adding a warning message.