From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [IPv6:2620:52:3:1:0:246e:9693:128c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2103A1F8C6 for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 20:01:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5505F384801F for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 20:01:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5505F384801F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1625947270; bh=Y/MnN1HeDjltrQ35skgWlu8ByKqZ+ek5u6syos9a+9I=; h=To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=S9TFCZYP6Zc9IzWBjKPY57Jt3EGNCuy+XE+YkTqGSm2CXEWrmjzVNG9Xq0mmQJoUZ Z1bgRubyh1r4ZhDatz22J+276c13TG1Yj3LmadSBaqyiBKIjvagkB6HWxWEggfrlZQ 6ZJVpPnga8AiCNP1YbULg3RgeQyP3XjBgy6K4xwk= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5FA385C40F for ; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 20:00:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BD5FA385C40F Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-276-nby2sK4wP6G6lvUIYdwYGw-1; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:00:48 -0400 X-MC-Unique: nby2sK4wP6G6lvUIYdwYGw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 366BE1835AC3; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 20:00:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (ovpn-112-103.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.112.103]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ED6360864; Sat, 10 Jul 2021 20:00:46 +0000 (UTC) To: Adhemerval Zanella Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux: Use 32-bit vDSO for clock_gettime, gettimeofday, time (bug 28071) References: <87czrqf5un.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <878s2ef19p.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2021 22:00:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Adhemerval Zanella's message of "Sat, 10 Jul 2021 16:57:53 -0300") Message-ID: <874kd2ey6s.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha Reply-To: Florian Weimer Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces+e=80x24.org@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" * Adhemerval Zanella: > On 10/07/2021 15:54, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Adhemerval Zanella: >> >>> This does not fix the issue for __ASSUME_TIME64_SYSCALLS where it still uses >>> INLINE_SYSCALL_CALL which might clobber the errno, besides adding another >>> ifdef code path (which I really want to avoid). Instead I think we need to >>> open-coded the INLINE_VSYSCALL macro and replace all INLINE_SYSCALL_CALL >>> with INTERNAL_SYSCALL_CALLS: >> >> But for __ASSUME_TIME64_SYSCALLS, clock_gettime64 will not fail. >> >> What am I missing? Is the issue that INLINE_VSYSCALL may set ENOSYS >> artificially? > > I meant for __clock_gettime64, where it may still clobber the errno > on older kernels (although it might be a fringe case). In any case, > I still think making all time32 call to call time64 is a better > implementation than add some specific calls for time32. So do you want to send an alternative patch? I can add my tests on top of that. Thanks, Florian