On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:25 PM Christophe Leroy christophe.leroy@c-s.fr wrote:
Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de a écrit :
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:43 PM Ben Hutchings ben.hutchings@codethink.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 22:07 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
@@ -192,7 +190,7 @@ V_FUNCTION_BEGIN(__kernel_time) bl __get_datapage@local mr r9, r3 /* datapage ptr in r9 */
lwz r3,STAMP_XTIME+TSPEC_TV_SEC(r9)
lwz r3,STAMP_XTIME_SEC+LOWPART(r9)"LOWPART" should be "LOPART".
Thanks, fixed both instances in a patch on top now. I considered folding it into the original patch, but as it's close to the merge window I'd rather not rebase it, and this way I also give you credit for finding the bug.
Take care, might conflict with https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commit/5e381d727fe8834ca5a126f510194a7a4ac...
Sorry for my late reply. I see this commit and no other variant of it has made it into linux-next by now, so I assume this is not getting sent for v5.5 and it's not stopping me from sending my own pull request.
Please let me know if I missed something and this will cause problems.
On a related note: are you still working on the generic lib/vdso support for powerpc? Without that, future libc implementations that use 64-bit time_t will have to use the slow clock_gettime64 syscall instead of the vdso, which has a significant performance impact.
Arnd