On 10/17/19 10:20 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: [...] > The architectures which implement VDSO are: > > arm, arm64, mips, nds32, powerpc, riscv, s390, sparc, x86, um > > arm64, mips, x86 use the generic VDSO. Patches for arm are floating > around. UM is special as it just traps into the syscalls. No idea about the > rest. Vincenzo might know. > There a couple of cases: hexagon and csky that have vDSOs for signal trampolines if I recall correctly, but they do not fall into the category we are exploring at the moment. > The bad news is that we have no information (except on arm which has a > config switch for VDSO) whether an architecture provides VDSO support or > not. > > So unless you add something like > > config HAS_VDSO > bool > > which is selected by all architectures which provide VDSO support, the only > sane solution is to depend on GENERIC_VDSO_TIME_NS. > > TBH, I would not even bother. The architectures which matter and are going > to use time namespaces already support VDSO and they need to move to the > generic implementation anyway as we discussed and agreed on in Vancouver. > > Providing time name spaces for the non VDSO archs is a purely academic > exercise. I totally agree with this. -- Regards, Vincenzo _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
