From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e24smtp04.br.ibm.com (e24smtp04.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e24smtp04.br.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB8022C00A4 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:40:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e24smtp04.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:40:33 -0300 Received: from d24relay01.br.ibm.com (d24relay01.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.16]) by d24dlp01.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CFE3520060 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:40:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.93]) by d24relay01.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r2LDcInv2228236 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:38:18 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r2LDeTlO026687 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:40:29 -0300 Received: from [9.18.239.243] (carranca.br.ibm.com [9.18.239.243]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r2LDeTmV026684 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:40:29 -0300 Message-ID: <514B0DCD.5020209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:40:29 -0300 From: Adhemerval Zanella MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] powerpc: Add VDSO version of time References: <5148C2B3.6010408@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1363755620.18880.27.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1363755620.18880.27.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 20-03-2013 02:00, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2013-03-19 at 16:55 -0300, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: >> I focused on 64 bit kernel, do I need to provide a scheme for 32 bits >> as well? > You did provide both 32 and 64-bit VDSO implementations so 32-bit > kernels should be covered. Indeed and thanks for the reply. Any objection or request about including it? Thanks.