[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5320D3AB.5060002@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:37:47 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Martin Runge <Martin.Runge@...de-schwarz.com>,
Andreas Brief <Andreas.Brief@...de-schwarz.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: Remove compat vdso support
On 03/12/2014 12:41 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So my reaction was "don't do that".
>
> But people pointing out that we can't do what x86-64 does made me
> think: we could avoid the whole "nasty code for a legacy case" by
> making it the *non*-legacy case. We could get rid of the fixmap
> HPET/VVAR entirely - on x86-64 (which can use those addresses) a
> PC-relative addressing is probably actually better anyway, so mapping
> them together with the vdso code shouldn't hurt.
>
How would that deal with the legacy vsyscall case for x86-64? Just rely
on the "legacy vsyscall emulation" (which seems to have its own class of
problems...)?
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists