Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.4-pre1_vsyscall-gtod_B3-part3 (3/3)

john stultz
2004-03-04T02:43:47Z

On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 18:16, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> > This is just like the kernel patches people proposes when they get
> > vmalloc LDT allocation failure, because they run with the i686 glibc
> > instead of the only possibly supported i586 configuration. It makes no
> > sense to hide a glibc inefficiency
>
> You apparently still haven't gotten any clue since your whining the last
> time around. Absolute addresses are a fatal mistake.

Before we start up this larger debate again, might there be some short
term solution for my patch that would satisfy both of you?

If I understand the earlier arguments, if we're going to have the
dynamically relocated segments at some point, I agree that absolute
addresses are going to have problems. However, if I'm not mistaken, this
problem already exists w/ the vsyscall-sysenter code, correct?

What is the plan for avoiding the absolute address issue there? If I
implemented the vsyscall-gettimeofday code in a similar manner (as
Andrea suggested), could the planned solution for vsyscall-sysenter be
applied here as well?

thanks
-john