On 2025-10-13 10:14, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> I don't actually remember whether the kernel ever used this. It's
> possible that there are ancient kernels where passing a wild, non-null
> pointer would blow up. But it's certainly safe to pass null, and it's
> certainly safe for the kernel to ig
On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 7:07 AM Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 10/13/25 02:20, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > -int __vdso_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node, struct
> > getcpu_cache *unused);
> > -int __vdso_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node, struct
> > getcpu_cache *unused)
> > +in
On 10/13/25 02:20, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> -int __vdso_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node, struct getcpu_cache
> *unused);
> -int __vdso_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node, struct getcpu_cache
> *unused)
> +int __vdso_getcpu(unsigned int *cpu, unsigned int *node, void *unuse
The cache parameter of getcpu() is not used by the kernel and no user
ever passes it in anyways.
Remove the struct and its header.
As a side-effect we get rid of an unwanted inclusion of the linux/
header namespace from vDSO code.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh
---
Changes in v2:
- Rebase on v
