Received: by 2002:a25:8b91:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp1145213ybl; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:58:34 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwmQNMEJ2Sf+aSaqPVvMuouQ1xHz1WmJmBZeV5Br+QbhF/gwbD5HGi/cjeLIR3ILuJGZ5a4 X-Received: by 2002:aca:a9c5:: with SMTP id s188mr3844228oie.154.1578689914362; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:58:34 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1578689914; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=MD4vCDiRM4Xm7g7TG/qqSwHm7nfjCRZ9rmEVQqhh+hzb3oZbbXDq1DbbXaTTQDK/fM Q7vtuyaOEDDZVHIv2X0qC8p0NiCAOfLgk7m50KniDtFhGxSeORQ69egH4nKljs8ZfA/5 +KqHdc9DtQRLvLjqx6raq5+8+VBYgmkjYZHKng54ugO0ze3VtQBqlzUEMQrxlrJ9LT3G xadYFxgljeiRy65JN76YlXMcTknUQURVJwuJRvUD/G2ibj3dMu+2OLvkVQ1uN3uX548F oeJebxfLBTImuUyNv97n48vTpwtDl7TpSG//1HPf95wEbNaD/b/q6xBNExiTRGHHyPYK pXKw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from; bh=GtzA0vsmHexRZr1OuJPqGAoqdEprTPuMhWx6jXShsaY=; b=xn69yH3GXrIm/IFGogTAjMxLHQWFznXMPbKpeip+3V3j6JvYUzCp6d/zE7MaK+dvw8 oYN92mzWByKsh2iKCwOZjd86WItKTYQ1WydvO5WqpTD4TdFnQgHUQ/6IbWGV+ai6Af2C nC0qFBwjwvo8FURPflRIY+aoN+8u76hs6C8qS6rqL2SIlyhuw8KKFka2yJiWD0fT0jeS X+YwsB+wkt/DVLDv0KMjkVt6tUVtDXJjQAOygz73Fk8eklZFSGq5K4QF25kwUQJM+uzg 4FU79aRPmPHeu1aL2J5ZfNMYvEieZ5kKETDvda7mQmWdPnGRBS4/dlcVguVz9oDt2Ixq W+5g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id r1si1974050otn.150.2020.01.10.12.58.23; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 12:58:34 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726962AbgAJU43 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:56:29 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:59751 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726842AbgAJU43 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2020 15:56:29 -0500 Received: from p5b06da22.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([91.6.218.34] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1iq1KD-0004bR-TU; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:56:10 +0100 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 400F9105BDB; Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:56:09 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Andy Lutomirski , Christophe Leroy Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Arnd Bergmann , Vincenzo Frascino , Andrew Lutomirski , LKML , linuxppc-dev , linux-arm-kernel , "open list\:MIPS" , X86 ML Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 01/10] lib: vdso: ensure all arches have 32bit fallback In-Reply-To: References: <47701b5fb73cf536db074031db8e6e3fa3695168.1577111365.git.christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:56:09 +0100 Message-ID: <87sgknrpxy.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andy Lutomirski writes: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 6:31 AM Christophe Leroy > wrote: >> >> In order to simplify next step which moves fallback call at arch >> level, ensure all arches have a 32bit fallback instead of handling >> the lack of 32bit fallback in the common code based >> on VDSO_HAS_32BIT_FALLBACK > > I don't like this. You've implemented what appear to be nonsensical > fallbacks (the 32-bit fallback for a 64-bit vDSO build? There's no > such thing). > > How exactly does this simplify patch 2? There is a patchset from Vincenzo which fell through the cracks which addresses the VDS_HAS_32BIT_FALLBACK issue properly. I'm about to pick it up. See: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190830135902.20861-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com/ Thanks, tglx