On 06/29/2018 07:32 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> Point is: is this a fix or papering over the real problem? I would like to
> know *for sure* that I'm not applying a hack with this patch. In other words:
> why it should use 32bits instead of 64?
It's a workaround because the 64-bit tagged pointers assume a 48 bit virtual
address space as on x86_64 while SPARC has a 52-bit virtual address space.
And since the Linux kernel allocates memory from top to bottom, any tagged
pointers will get mangled on sparc64.
Totally understandable. I ACK the change then. If you can create a merge request on salsa the better, else I'll see to do it myself soon.
Ideally it would be done in the experimental branch, as we plan to push that version to unstable real soon now.