On 9/25/15, Gabriel Paubert <paub...@iram.es> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 12:28:30PM +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote: >> On 9/25/15, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: >> > On Friday 25 September 2015 14:01:39 Michael Neuling wrote: >> >> This adds a benchmark directory to the powerpc selftests and adds a >> >> gettimeofday() benchmark to it. >> >> >> >> Suggested-by: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling <mi...@neuling.org> >> >> >> > >> > Any reason for keeping this powerpc specific? It seems generally >> > useful. >> > and portable. >> You're right. Moreover, we can put some comment to the benchmark why >> we've made such decision to add it (reference to the commit >> "powerpc/vdso: Avoid link stack corruption in __get_datapage()") > > Why gettimeofday? Isn't clock_gettime the modern variant?
Mostly, I think, for historical reasons. Both of them are implemented as vsyscalls (on ppc, ) so why bother? BTW: Found an interesting vdso testsuite on github: https://github.com/nlynch-mentor/vdsotest under GPL. Not sure if we really need such similar thing in the kernel selftest sources. > > BTW: dows anyone receive 2 copies of every messge in this thread ? > > I do, and I suspect that this is due to the Cc: list having both > linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org and linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org. I removed the > former for this reply. > > Gabriel > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev