[RFC PATCH v3 08/12] lib: vdso: allow arches to provide vdso data pointer
christophe.leroy at c-s.fr
Thu Jan 16 01:16:18 PST 2020
Le 15/01/2020 à 07:15, Christophe Leroy a écrit :
> Le 15/01/2020 à 00:06, Thomas Gleixner a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at c-s.fr> writes:
>>> static __maybe_unused int
>>> +#ifdef VDSO_GETS_VD_PTR_FROM_ARCH
>>> +__cvdso_clock_gettime_common(const struct vdso_data *vd, clockid_t
>>> + struct __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>> __cvdso_clock_gettime_common(clockid_t clock, struct
>>> __kernel_timespec *ts)
>>> const struct vdso_data *vd = __arch_get_vdso_data();
>>> u32 msk;
>> If we do that, then there is no point in propagating this to the inner
>> functions. It's perfectly fine to have this distinction at the outermost
> In v2, I did it at the arch level (see
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1214983/). Andy was concerned about
> it being suboptimal for arches which (unlike powerpc) have PC related
> data addressing mode.
> Wouldn't it be the same issue if doing it at the outermost level of
> generic VDSO ?
Any opinion on this ?
From your point of view, what should I do:
A/ __arch_get_vdso_data() handled entirely at arch level and arches
handing over the vdso data pointer to generic C VDSO functions all the
time (as in my v2 series) ?
B/ Data pointer being handed over all the way up for arches wanting to
do so, no changes at all for others (as in my v3 series) ?
C/ __arch_get_vdso_data() being called at the outermost generic level
for arches not interested in handling data pointer from the caller (as
suggested by Thomas) ?
Andy, with A/ you were concerned about arches being able to do PC
related accesses. Would it be an issue for C/ as well ? If not, I guess
C/ would be cleaner than B/ allthought not as clean as A which doesn't
add any #ifdefery at all.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel