Re: [PATCH 0/5] Last bits for initial 5-level paging enabling

["Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>]

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:49:15PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 11:06:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > As Ingo requested I've split and updated last two patches for my previous
> > > patchset.
> > > 
> > > Please review and consider applying.
> > > 
> > > Kirill A. Shutemov (5):
> > >   x86: Enable 5-level paging support
> > >   x86/mm: Rename tasksize_32bit/64bit to task_size_32bit/64bit
> > >   x86/mpx: Do not allow MPX if we have mappings above 47-bit
> > >   x86/mm: Prepare to expose larger address space to userspace
> > >   x86/mm: Allow userspace have mapping above 47-bit
> > 
> > Ok, looks pretty neat now.
> > 
> > Can I apply them in this order cleanly, without breaking bisection:
> > 
> > >   x86/mm: Rename tasksize_32bit/64bit to task_size_32bit/64bit
> > >   x86/mpx: Do not allow MPX if we have mappings above 47-bit
> > >   x86/mm: Prepare to expose larger address space to userspace
> > >   x86/mm: Allow userspace have mapping above 47-bit
> > >   x86: Enable 5-level paging support
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > I.e. I'd like to move the first patch last.
> > 
> > The reason is that we should first get all quirks and assumptions fixed, all 
> > facilities implemented - and only then enable 5-level paging as a final step which 
> > produces a well working kernel.
> > 
> > (This should also make it slightly easier to analyze any potential regressions in 
> > earlier patches.)
> 
> Just checked bisectability with this order on allmodconfig -- works fine.

Ingo, if there's no objections, can we get these applied?

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov