Re: [PATCH v6 18/19] x86: Add support for generic vDSO

Sasha Levin
2019-06-23T19:09:38Z

On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 04:46:28PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:15:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > On Thu, 30 May 2019, Michael Kelley wrote:
>> > > Vincenzo -- these changes for Hyper-V are a subset of a larger patch set
>> > > I have that moves all of the Hyper-V clock/timer code into a separate
>> > > clocksource driver in drivers/clocksource, with an include file in
>> > > includes/clocksource. That new include file should be able to work
>> > > instead of your new mshyperv-tsc.h. It also has the benefit of being
>> > > ISA neutral, so it will work with my in-progress patch set to support
>> > > Linux on Hyper-V on ARM64. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/27/231
>> > > for the new clocksource driver patch set.
>> >
>> > Grrr. That's queued in hyperv-next for whatever reasons.
>>
>> I queue up our future pull requests there to give them some soaking in
>> -next.
>
>What? You queue completely unreviewed stuff which touches two other
>subsystems to let it soak in next?

It was out on LKML for 2+ weeks before I've pulled it in. As it mostly
touches hyperv bits I felt comfortable to give it time in -next (but not
actually to try and merge it until it gets a few acks).

>> > Sasha, can you please provide me the branch to pull from so I can have a
>> > common base for all the various changes floating around?
>>
>> I'll send you a unified pull request for these changes.
>
>Which has not materialized yet.

Appologies about this. I ended up with way more travel than I would have
liked (writing this from an airport). I've reset our hyperv-next branch
to remove these 3 commits until we figure this out.

>TBH, I'm pretty grumpy about those clocksource changes. Here is the
>diffstat:
>
> MAINTAINERS | 2
> arch/x86/entry/vdso/vclock_gettime.c | 1
> arch/x86/entry/vdso/vma.c | 2
> arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c | 91 ---------
> arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h | 6
> arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h | 81 +-------
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c | 2
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 1
> drivers/clocksource/Makefile | 1
> drivers/clocksource/hyperv_timer.c | 322 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/hv/Kconfig | 3
> drivers/hv/hv.c | 156 ----------------
> drivers/hv/hv_util.c | 1
> drivers/hv/hyperv_vmbus.h | 3
> drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c | 42 ++--
> include/clocksource/hyperv_timer.h | 105 +++++++++++
>
>While the world and some more people have been CC'ed on those patches,
>neither the clocksource nor the x86 maintainer have been.
>
>When I gave Vincenzo the advise to base his code on that hyper-v branch, I
>expected that I find the related patches in my mail backlog. No, they have
>not been there because I was not on CC.
>
>Folks, please stop chosing Cc lists as you like. We have well established
>rules for that. And please stop queueing random unreviewed patches in
>next. Next is not a playground for not ready and unreviewed stuff. No, the
>hyper-v inbreed Reviewed-by is not sufficient for anything x86 and
>clocksource related.

I'm sorry for this, you were supposed to be Cc'ed on these patches and I
see that you were not.

>After chasing and looking at those patches, which have horrible subject
>lines and changelogs btw, I was not able to judge quickly whether that
>stuff is self contained or not. So no, I fixed up the fallout and rebased
>Vincenzos VDSO stuff on mainline w/o those hyperv changes simply because if
>they are not self contained they will break bisection badly.
>
>I'm going to push out the VDSO series later today. That will nicely break
>in combination with the hyper-next branch. Stephen, please drop that and do
>not try to handle the fallout. That stuff needs to go through the proper
>channels or at least be acked/reviewed by the relevant maintainers. So the
>hyper-v folks can rebase themself and post it proper.

Okay, thank you. We'll rebase and resend.

--
Thanks,
Sasha