Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.6.4-pre1_vsyscall-gtod_B3-part3 (3/3) | From | john stultz <> | Date | Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:43:18 -0800 |
| |
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
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |