[PATCH v7 7/9] ARM: add vdso user-space code

[Nathan_Lynch@mentor.com (Nathan Lynch)]

On 06/30/2014 10:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On 06/28/2014 08:26 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 10:11:56PM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>>> Place vdso-related user-space code in arch/arm/kernel/vdso/.
>>>
>>> It is almost completely written in C with some assembly helpers to
>>> load the data page address, sample the counter, and fall back to
>>> system calls when necessary.
>>>
>>> If CONFIG_ARM_ARCH_TIMER is not enabled, the vdso cannot service
>>> high-resolution clocks and falls back to syscalls.  Low-resolution
>>> clocks e.g. CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE can be serviced regardless.
>>
>> Okay, how is this used by userspace?
>>
>> It seems that on ARM, we generate a dso with these symbols:
>>
>> DYNAMIC SYMBOL TABLE:
>> 000001e4 l    d  .eh_frame_hdr    00000000              .eh_frame_hdr
>> 00000000 g    DO *ABS*    00000000  LINUX_3.17  LINUX_3.17
>> 000003c4 g    DF .text    00000080  LINUX_3.17  __kernel_clock_getres
>> 00000444 g    DF .text    0000002c  LINUX_3.17  __kernel_gettimeofday
>> 00000298 g    DF .text    0000012c  LINUX_3.17  __kernel_clock_gettime
> 
> Sorry, late to the thread.
> 
> I think that, if your function signatures match, you should give them
> the same names and versions as for x86 (i.e. LINUX_2.6,
> __vdso_clock_gettime).  Userspace will thank you.

I don't care strongly about it, but I was following arm64's example with
the naming, and I thought the version should match the Linux version in
which the VDSO symbols were introduced.  I can see that about half the
vdso-providing architectures (e.g. arm64, powerpc, s390) follow that
version convention instead of using LINUX_2.6.  However, looking through
git history I see that when people add new symbols to their VDSOs they
don't mark them with the current Linux version -- for example, when
powerpc added getcpu -- so I'm left thinking the version is not that
meaningful.

In other words, I'm inclined to make the changes you suggest, unless
someone knows why I shouldn't.


> Don't do the weak clock_gettime, etc aliases, though.  That was never a
> good idea to begin with.

OK, that was my suspicion, thanks for confirming.