Hi Sylwester,
On 08/07/2019 13:57, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi Vincenzo,
>
> On 6/29/19 08:58, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> If I may, I would like to ask to you one favor, could you please keep an eye
>> on
>> next and once those patches are merged repeat the test?
>>
>> I want just to make s
Hi Vincenzo,
On 6/29/19 08:58, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> If I may, I would like to ask to you one favor, could you please keep an eye
> on
> next and once those patches are merged repeat the test?
>
> I want just to make sure that the regression does not reappear.
My apologies, I forgot about
Hi Sylwester,
thank you for the quick turn around to my email.
On 6/28/19 5:50 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi Vincenzo,
>
> On 6/28/19 16:32, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 6/28/19 2:09 PM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>> On 2019-06-21 11:52, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
To take advantage of th
Hi Vincenzo,
On 6/28/19 16:32, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 6/28/19 2:09 PM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> On 2019-06-21 11:52, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>>> To take advantage of the commonly defined vdso interface for
>>> gettimeofday the architectural code requires an adaptation.
>>>
>>> Re-impleme
Hi Marek,
On 6/28/19 2:09 PM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> On 2019-06-21 11:52, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> To take advantage of the commonly defined vdso interface for
>> gettimeofday the architectural code requires an adaptation.
>>
>> Re-implement the gettimeofday vdso in C in order
Dear All,
On 2019-06-21 11:52, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> To take advantage of the commonly defined vdso interface for
> gettimeofday the architectural code requires an adaptation.
>
> Re-implement the gettimeofday vdso in C in order to use lib/vdso.
>
> With the new implementation arm64 gains sup
Hi Dave,
On 6/27/19 3:38 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:59:07PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> On 6/27/19 12:27 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:57:36AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>
> [...]
>
Disassembly of section .text:
0
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:59:07PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> On 6/27/19 12:27 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:57:36AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
[...]
> >> Disassembly of section .text:
> >> show_it:
> >>0: e8 03 1f aa mov x8, x
On 6/27/19 12:27 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:57:36AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Overall, I want to thank you for bringing out the topic. It helped me to
>> question some decisions and make sure that we have no holes left in
>> the approach.
>
> Fair e
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:57:36AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Overall, I want to thank you for bringing out the topic. It helped me to
> question some decisions and make sure that we have no holes left in
> the approach.
Fair enough.
This is really just a nasty compiler corne
Hi Dave,
Overall, I want to thank you for bringing out the topic. It helped me to
question some decisions and make sure that we have no holes left in the
approach.
[...]
>>
>> vDSO library is a shared object not compiled with LTO as far as I can
>> see, hence if this involved LTO should not app
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 08:01:58PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
[...]
> On 6/26/19 5:14 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:59PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> >> Hi Dave,
> >>
> >> On 25/06/2019 16:33, Dave Martin wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:52:31AM +0100,
Hi Dave,
thank you for the quick turn around.
On 6/26/19 5:14 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:59PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> On 25/06/2019 16:33, Dave Martin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
To take a
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 02:27:59PM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 25/06/2019 16:33, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> >> To take advantage of the commonly defined vdso interface for
> >> gettimeofday the architectural cod
Hi Dave,
On 25/06/2019 16:33, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> To take advantage of the commonly defined vdso interface for
>> gettimeofday the architectural code requires an adaptation.
>>
>> Re-implement the gettimeofday vdso in C in orde
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> To take advantage of the commonly defined vdso interface for
> gettimeofday the architectural code requires an adaptation.
>
> Re-implement the gettimeofday vdso in C in order to use lib/vdso.
>
> With the new implementation arm
On 24/06/2019 14:36, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Vincenzo,
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> To take advantage of the commonly defined vdso interface for
>> gettimeofday the architectural code requires an adaptation.
>>
>> Re-implement the gettimeofday vdso i
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> index 947e39896e28..9e4b7ccbab2f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c
> @@ -25,13 +25,13 @@
> #inc
Hi Vincenzo,
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
> To take advantage of the commonly defined vdso interface for
> gettimeofday the architectural code requires an adaptation.
>
> Re-implement the gettimeofday vdso in C in order to use lib/vdso.
>
> With the new impl
19 matches
Mail list logo
