[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3d4fa11d-fe93-438f-6668-f2e6f93c62bc@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 16:33:03 +0000
From: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
will.deacon@....com, linux@...linux.org.uk, luto@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: Fix arm_arch_timer clockmode when vDSO
disabled
Hi Marc,
On 21/02/2020 16:24, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-02-21 15:56, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
[...]
>
> Which is exactly the same thing as before. It's not an indirection,
> it is just another overloading of an existing symbol.
>
Yes, sorry, I missed the indirection here. I wanted more to agree on the concept.
>>> Fair enough. But don't override the symbol locally. Create a new one:
>>>
>>
>> I see what you mean now, you mean to not overload the semantical meaning of the
>> symbol. The symbol (VDSO_CLOCKMODE_ARCHTIMER) at this point is never defined
>> when VDSO=n, but I agree with you it can cause confusion.
>
> Exactly. It breaks the expectation that if VDSO_CLOCKMODE_ARCHTIMER exists,
> it has a unique, known value. Yes, the outcome is the same. That doesn't
> make it acceptable though.
>
> So building on your above example, here's what I'd like to see:
>
[...]
All right, I agree, I will post the patches later on today.
--
Regards,
Vincenzo
Download attachment "pEpkey.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (14072 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists