From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 10:46:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v7 0/9] ARM: VDSO In-Reply-To: References: <1403493118-7597-1-git-send-email-nathan_lynch@mentor.com> <20140627085125.GA7088@hal> <20140627085705.GC32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20140627094648.GE32514@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:41:46AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > It appears that the EF_ARM_ABI_FLOAT_[SOFT|HARD] defines are just renames of > > #define EF_ARM_SOFT_FLOAT 0x200 > #define EF_ARM_VFP_FLOAT 0x400 > > so perhaps use those instead? Or maybe provide our own definitions so we're not reliant on the host environment providing the correct definitions for these. > > This is what really concerns me about the VDSO. It adds an additional > > dependence on the C library in order to build the kernel. What if you > > don't have a C library in your cross-build setup (I don't.) > > > > This is a host tool, so this is about the host libc not the target libc. It still sounds pretty fragile. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.