From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49648)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1V221n-0001ur-MW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:35:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1V221k-0006XQ-TP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:35:03 -0400
Received: from mail-yh0-x232.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c01::232]:46458)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1V221k-0006XM-O1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:35:00 -0400
Received: by mail-yh0-f50.google.com with SMTP id a41so190971yho.23
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51F0022E.7010507@twiddle.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 06:34:54 -1000
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1374611274-19493-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net>
	<CAFEAcA9=-bN7b=sQR3oHbQfoPsJjJd5B9conRp_bbwybQmLBoQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9=-bN7b=sQR3oHbQfoPsJjJd5B9conRp_bbwybQmLBoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] vdso for x86_64-linux-user
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: riku.voipio@iki.fi, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 07/23/2013 11:15 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 July 2013 21:27, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote:
>> This is a refresh of a patch I wrote in 2010, and have re-posted every
>> 6 months thereafter.  To my knowledge, it has never been reviewed.
>>
>> It supplies a replacement for the required x86-64 vdso.  Anyone trying
>> to emulate x86_64-linux on a host other than same will quickly run into
>> the lack of a gettimeofday syscall, which glibc assumes is always
>> provided by the vdso.
> 
> Do we really need to mess with building an x86 shared object
> and pulling it in, rather than the kind of ad-hoc way we
> handle the ARM commpage?

Isn't the arm ad-hoc really the much larger and uglier hack?


r~