From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755354AbcEaRZX (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 31 May 2016 13:25:23 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42295 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751484AbcEaRZU (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 31 May 2016 13:25:20 -0400
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 19:25:14 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hp.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: Enhancing semantics with memremap() - aliasing with memremap()
Message-ID: <20160531172514.GI11948@wotan.suse.de>
References: <CAB=NE6Wy=V17uwc3GNMYaWk4cOx1a1TtHBgMYii-M5FDuPn_Gw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160531165828.GA25366@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160531165828.GA25366@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.
> 
> So you want an explicit opt-in flag to allow aliasing?  Sounds fine to
> me.
  
Yup! Can the default then safely already be no-aliasing then?

  Luis