Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181001175845.168430-1-salyzyn@android.com>
References: <20181001175845.168430-1-salyzyn@android.com>
From:   John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:49:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CALAqxLWCbw0bmYeB9Vfi5wXJcnLRnE0TYxy1h5WkHLehHv8KFg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RESEND and REBASE arm+arm64+aarch32 vdso rewrite
To:     Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
        Andrew Pinski <apinski@cavium.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Jeremy Linton <Jeremy.Linton@arm.com>,
        android-kernel@android.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com> wrote:
> Last sent 23 Nov 2016.
>
> The following 23 patches are rebased and resent, and represent a
> rewrite of the arm and arm64 vDSO into C, adding support for arch32
> (32-bit user space hosted 64-bit kernels) and into a common library
> that other (arm, or non-arm) architectures may utilize.

So I feel like this has gone around a few times w/o much comment from
the arm/arm64 maintainers. I'm not sure if there's a reason?

I worry part of the issue is the scope of this patch set is a little
unwieldy (covering two architectures + generic code) might leave
maintainers thinking/hoping someone else should review it.

It seems the patchset is already somewhat broken up into separate
sets, so I might recommend picking just one area and focus on
upstreaming that first. Maybe the in-arch cleanups for arm and then
arm64 and then maybe do the move to lib?

thanks
-john