From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/30] x32: Add x32 VDSO support Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:58:29 -0800 Message-ID: <4F431665.3010004@zytor.com> References: <1329696488-16970-1-git-send-email-hpa@zytor.com> <1329696488-16970-31-git-send-email-hpa@zytor.com> <4F42E171.9080005@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:40104 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752584Ab2BUD6n (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:58:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4F42E171.9080005@mit.edu> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com On 02/20/2012 04:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Would it make sense to remove the non-__vdso-prefixed weak symbols? > AFAICT they are somewhere between useless (because the __vdso symbols > are unambiguous), confusing (has anyone not read this and said "huh?"), > and wrong (they are not interchangeable with glibc's symbols as they > return different values). > > We're stuck with them on x86-64, but x32 is new and has no > backwards-compatibility issues. > What about non-glibc? -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.