Hi Arnd,
On 5/5/20 3:50 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 1:34 PM Vincenzo Frascino vincenzo.frascino@arm.com wrote:
This series extends the kselftests for the vDSO library making sure: that they compile correctly on non x86 platforms, that they can be cross compiled and introducing new tests that verify the correctness of the library.
The so extended vDSO kselftests have been verified on all the platforms supported by the unified vDSO library [1].
The only new patch that this series introduces is the first one, patch 2 and patch 3 have already been reviewed in past as part of other series [2] [3].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190621095252.32307-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.co... [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190621095252.32307-26-vincenzo.frascino@arm.c... [3] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190523112116.19233-4-vincenzo.frascino@arm.co...
Hi Vincenzo,
Not sure if you are aware of the recent bug report about clock_gettime64() returning invalid times on some arm32 kernels: https://github.com/raspberrypi/linux/issues/3579
No, I was not aware of the problem. There has been no mention on the arm list (unless I missed it). I can try to have a look at it as soon as I get some time.
Regardless of when that gets fixed or by whom, I wonder if kselftest should also check for consistency, i.e. call both the vdso and the syscall version of clock_gettime() and clock_gettime64() and check that the results are always in sequence.
The test #4 partially does that: it calls syscall-vdso-syscall and verifies that the sequencing is correct. I reused the x86 code for that. I could extend it to clock_gettime64() and make sure it builds on all the platforms.
Arnd