From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e24smtp01.br.ibm.com (e24smtp01.br.ibm.com [32.104.18.85]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e24smtp01.br.ibm.com", Issuer "GeoTrust SSL CA" (not verified)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E20F2C017E for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 04:32:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e24smtp01.br.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:32:49 -0300 Received: from d24relay03.br.ibm.com (d24relay03.br.ibm.com [9.13.184.25]) by d24dlp01.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70EB3520055 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:32:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d24av03.br.ibm.com (d24av03.br.ibm.com [9.8.31.95]) by d24relay03.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r2QHW0Jp23003278 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:32:00 -0300 Received: from d24av03.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av03.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r2QFX8j4016375 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:33:08 -0300 Received: from [9.18.239.167] (carranca.br.ibm.com [9.18.239.167]) by d24av03.br.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r2QFX8OM016372 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:33:08 -0300 Message-ID: <5151DBBD.4090705@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:32:45 -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> <514B0DCD.5020209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <514B0DCD.5020209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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: , Hi all, Just sending a ping about this patch. On 21-03-2013 10:40, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > Linuxppc-dev mailing list > Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev >