From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752718AbdJaJtw (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 31 Oct 2017 05:49:52 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:32928 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751997AbdJaJtv (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 31 Oct 2017 05:49:51 -0400
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 09:49:53 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@virtuozzo.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org>,
        Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>,
        Andrew Pinski <apinski@cavium.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/12] arm+arm64: vdso unification to lib/vdso/
Message-ID: <20171031094953.GA5584@arm.com>
References: <20171027222353.56875-1-salyzyn@android.com>
 <20171030141813.nozm5bgumb5qp2ol@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
 <6c9aa942-bfc0-4c54-888a-85fd1d43e40c@android.com>
 <20171030214434.ta26ekbg7jyws2lf@salmiak>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171030214434.ta26ekbg7jyws2lf@salmiak>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 09:44:35PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 01:34:13PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
> > On 10/30/2017 07:18 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote:
> > > > Note I noticed a bug in the old implementation of __kernel_clock_getres;
> > > > it was checking only the lower 32bits of the pointer; this would work
> > > > for most cases but could fail in a few.
> > > Sorry if this is a stupid question, but do you mean from a prior version
> > > of this series, or the one in the kernel today?
> > 
> > apinski@cavium.com noticed this as part of the existing upstream arm64
> > assembler when he did the original conversion to C.
> 
> Just to check, does the below address the issue, or is there something that
> I've missed?

Looks fine to me. Applied.

Will