From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E055238618BB for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:51:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org E055238618BB Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 11FHhRjw110230 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:51:55 -0500 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 36quxq3dr7-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:51:55 -0500 Received: from m0098393.ppops.net (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 11FHhxAs111207 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:51:54 -0500 Received: from ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (a.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.10]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 36quxq3dqv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Feb 2021 12:51:54 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 11FHkclF020040; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:51:53 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.23]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 36p6d9cwsj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:51:53 +0000 Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.110]) by b01cxnp22033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 11FHprA633620242 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:51:53 GMT Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0D3BAE05C; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:51:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F861AE05F; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:51:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from work-tp (unknown [9.65.218.248]) by b01ledav005.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:51:51 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 14:51:48 -0300 From: Raoni Fassina Firmino To: Florian Weimer Cc: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho via Libc-alpha Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc64: Workaround sigtramp vdso return call Message-ID: <20210215175148.z7qnlfpbhgvlw3vf@work-tp> Mail-Followup-To: Florian Weimer , Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho via Libc-alpha References: <20210127192305.pw74xougw2ejihuz@work-tp> <87czxp575w.fsf@linux.ibm.com> <87lfbumfpx.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87lfbumfpx.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.369, 18.0.761 definitions=2021-02-15_14:2021-02-12, 2021-02-15 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxlogscore=987 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2102150137 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:51:57 -0000 On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:55:54PM +0100, AL glibc-alpha wrote: > * Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho via Libc-alpha: > > >> LGTM, it is ok for 2.33. > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella > > > > Pushed as 5ee506ed35a2c9184bcb1fb5e79b6cceb9bb0dd1 > > Why isn't this handled as a kernel regression? I don't know if you mean a specific workflow to flag this as a regression in any bugtrack or something like that. Apart from that IMHO It is is a regression as I mentioned in some prior email[1] and I characterized it as such in my kernel patch[2] that was include for the 5.11 release and backported for 5.10.16. At least no one questioned this characterization. o/ Raoni [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-January/121951.html [2] https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2021-February/223585.html