From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pegase2.c-s.fr (pegase2.c-s.fr [93.17.235.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B610619E977; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 14:27:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=93.17.235.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725287237; cv=none; b=eMn/cZO9wwlyHYWOhdnAlGdpAqZR5LRL1C74f7S0L236ycljh2wp7PqepjAynNNz77buLsAGRkzaBf9GXZLRHDDZqFlfB9ZIUhYKdkNAbsWVvFPZGnBME5D6PJ77rPVEDO9YauxJSSnQFhyWoWUGAt0q9BYPqTfsmi4wur9kEJg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725287237; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5XAO6So90C7Z77hOfFo5Hiv5bfoYoQmj35QQGHH/8zo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=FeYONUK3zp5mBPpSVRfvoSXz8n2eM2mPxYuFmhGCz1RktaPNfmmL6NGkQCh+pz4kl6zS6+yYFyP1b0wBf6SNMBdk3hQrYJ3lalzY+0W08owBjClmPL/18Ik7ylYmcs85qk1NRplfgFif8Uq4NG+GJl7DUhZeXJHUYBPnDinmXP4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=csgroup.eu; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=csgroup.eu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=93.17.235.10 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=csgroup.eu Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=csgroup.eu Received: from localhost (mailhub3.si.c-s.fr [172.26.127.67]) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4WyB0d6QXrz9sSN; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:27:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at c-s.fr Received: from pegase2.c-s.fr ([172.26.127.65]) by localhost (pegase2.c-s.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AL8egIazKnXh; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:27:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [192.168.25.192]) by pegase2.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4WyB0d5ZcCz9sRy; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:27:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBF68B770; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:27:13 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at c-s.fr Received: from messagerie.si.c-s.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (messagerie.si.c-s.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10023) with ESMTP id Y7uy6imdDGV5; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:27:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.234.167] (unknown [192.168.234.167]) by messagerie.si.c-s.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76C28B76E; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:27:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 16:27:12 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] powerpc/vdso: Wire up getrandom() vDSO implementation on PPC64 To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , Michael Ellerman Cc: Andrew Morton , Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , Nicholas Piggin , Naveen N Rao , Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Bill Wendling , Justin Stitt , Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Adhemerval Zanella , Xi Ruoyao References: <27de70dcc356e56754a03a2887a97597f5e840a4.1725278148.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> Content-Language: fr-FR From: Christophe Leroy In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Jason, hi Michael, Le 02/09/2024 à 16:19, Jason A. Donenfeld a écrit : > On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 04:16:48PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: >> Can do that, but there will still be a problem with chacha selftests if >> I don't opt-out the entire function content when it is ppc64. It will >> build properly but if someone runs it on a ppc64 it will likely crash >> because only the low 32 bits of registers will be saved. > > What if you don't wire up the selftests _at all_ until the ppc64 commit? > Then there'll be no risk. > > (And I think I would prefer to see the 32-bit code all in the 32-bit > commit; that'd make it more straight forward to review too.) I'd be fine with that but I'd like feedback from Michael on it: Is there a risk to only get PPC32 part merged as a first step or will both PPC32 and PPC64 go together anyway ? I would prefer not to delay PPC32 because someone doesn't feel confident with PPC64. Christophe