On 23/02/2019 10:45, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, Vincenzo Frascino wrote:
>> void update_vsyscall_tz(void)
>> {
>> - vsyscall_gtod_data.tz_minuteswest = sys_tz.tz_minuteswest;
>> - vsyscall_gtod_data.tz_dsttime = sys_tz.tz_dsttime;
>> + vdso_data.tz_minuteswest = sys_tz.tz_minuteswest;
>> + vdso_data.tz_dsttime = sys_tz.tz_dsttime;
>> }
>>
>> void update_vsyscall(struct timekeeper *tk)
>> {
>> int vclock_mode = tk->tkr_mono.clock->archdata.vclock_mode;
>> - struct vsyscall_gtod_data *vdata = &vsyscall_gtod_data;
>> - struct vgtod_ts *base;
>> + struct vdso_data *vdata = &vdso_data;
>> + struct vdso_timestamp *vdso_ts;
>> u64 nsec;
>>
>> /* Mark the new vclock used. */
>> BUILD_BUG_ON(VCLOCK_MAX >= 32);
>> WRITE_ONCE(vclocks_used, READ_ONCE(vclocks_used) | (1 << vclock_mode));
>>
>> - gtod_write_begin(vdata);
>> + vdso_write_begin(vdata);
>
> This begs the question why this update code is still architecture
> specific. The vdso data is now generic, so the whole update can be generic
> as well. The only x86 specific thing is this perhaps:
>
> int vclock_mode = tk->tkr_mono.clock->archdata.vclock_mode;
>
> vdata->clock_mode = vclock_mode;
>
> But either than can be made generic and mandatory or easily resolved with a
> trivial arch_update_vsyscall() inline.
>
I agree, I will make it generic in the next patch series.
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
--
Regards,
Vincenzo
