From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753813AbdJaWEc (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:04:32 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48918 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752473AbdJaWEb (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:04:31 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 12E21CD4CA Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=jcm@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/12] arm+arm64: vdso unification to lib/vdso/ To: Mark Salyzyn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20171031183022.80775-1-salyzyn@android.com> Cc: James Morse , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Andy Lutomirski , Dmitry Safonov , John Stultz , Mark Rutland , Laura Abbott , Kees Cook , Ard Biesheuvel , Andy Gross , Kevin Brodsky , Andrew Pinski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org From: Jon Masters Message-ID: <64439dc3-909d-722f-68c3-d8e20e96ed9a@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 18:04:19 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171031183022.80775-1-salyzyn@android.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 22:04:31 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/31/2017 02:30 PM, Mark Salyzyn wrote: > Take an effort to recode the arm64 vdso code from assembler to C > previously submitted by Andrew Pinski , rework > it for use in both arm and arm64, overlapping any optimizations > for each architecture. But instead of landing it in arm64, land the > result into lib/vdso and unify both implementations to simplify > future maintenance. This will act as the basis for implementing > arm64 vdso32 in the future. In the original patch series, our QE folks found a problem that lead to its revertion from our internal trees. I've pinged them to check this latest version and followup if we see the same failures now. Jon. -- Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop