Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Le 30/10/2024 à 12:39, Thomas Gleixner a écrit : >> Folks! >> >> On Thu, Oct 10 2024 at 09:01, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: >>> Historically each architecture defined their own datapage to store the >>> VDSO data. This stands in contrast to the generic nature of the VDSO >>> code itself. >>> We plan to introduce a generic framework for the management of the VDSO >>> data storage that can be used by all architectures and which works >>> together with the existing generic VDSO code. >>> >>> Before that is possible align the different architectures by >>> standardizing on the existing generic infrastructure and moving things >>> out of the VDSO data page which does not belong there. >>> >>> Patches 1- 2: csky >>> Patch 3: s390 >>> Patches 4- 5: arm64 >>> Patch 6: riscv >>> Patch 7: arm >>> Patch 8: LoongArch >>> Patch 9: MIPS >>> Patches 10-20: x86 >>> Patches 21-27: powerpc >>> Patch 28: Renamings to avoid a name clash with the new code. >> >> As this has been sitting for two weeks now without major comments, I'm >> planning to merge that through the tip tree tomorrow. > > To avoid any future conflicts with powerpc tree, I suggest you merge > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux.git > topic/vdso into your tree before applying this series. I thought the same, but there actually isn't any conflict at the moment between the two trees. Some of Thomas W's later changes to convert arches to generic VDSO storage do conflict, but they look to be destined for the next merge window. cheers
