On Friday, December 11, 2015, Konstantin Belousov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:48:11PM +0100, Oliver Pinter wrote: > > On Thursday, December 10, 2015, Konstantin Belousov <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:18:19PM +0100, Oliver Pinter wrote: > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Konstantin Belousov < > [email protected] <javascript:;> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > Author: kib > > > > > Date: Mon Nov 23 07:09:35 2015 > > > > > New Revision: 291171 > > > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/291171 > > > > > > > > > > Log: > > > > > Split kerne timekeep ABI structure vdso_sv_tk out of the struct > > > > > sysentvec. This allows the timekeep data to be shared between > > > similar > > > > > ABIs which cannot share sysentvec. > > > > > > > > > > Make the timekeep_push_vdso() tick callback to the timekeep > > > structures > > > > > instead of sysentvecs. If several sysentvec share the vdso_sv_tk > > > > > structure, we would update the userspace data several times on > each > > > > > tick, without the change. > > > > > > > > > > Only allocate vdso_sv_tk in the exec_sysvec_init() sysinit when > > > > > sysentvec is marked with the new SV_TIMEKEEP flag. This saves > > > > > allocation and update of unneeded vdso_sv_tk for ABIs which do > not > > > > > provide userspace gettimeofday yet, which are PowerPCs arches > right > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > Make vdso_sv_tk allocator public, namely split out and export > > > > > alloc_sv_tk() and alloc_sv_tk_compat32(). ABIs which share > timekeep > > > > > data now can allocate it manually and share as appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > Requested by: nwhitehorn > > > > > Tested by: nwhitehorn, pho > > > > > Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation > > > > > MFC after: 2 weeks > > > > > > > > Hello Konstantin! > > > > > > > > Do you plan to MFC back this changes to 10-STABLE in these days? > > > > > > I decided to not merge the change. > > > > > > > And if I'm not wrong, the rationale behind this decision is the type > > stability of struct sysvec / sysent. > You are wrong. The modules which use sysentvec are marked as > DECLARE_MODULE_TIED(), to designate them as requiring kernel of exactly > same version due to KBI issues. I.e. the merge would indeed break KBI, > but KBI breakage there is expected and considered acceptable on the > stable branch. Mainly, the affected modules are ABI emulators (linux.ko > and similar). > > I got demotivated to merge a prerequisite changes which modified code > in kern_sharedpage.c, and do not want to obliterate the code and > history on stable/10 with 'fake' merge. This makes the revision you > asked about non-mergeable. > Okay, thank you for the detailed answer. If _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
