Re: [PATCH] PowerPC: Fix gettimeofday ifunc selection

[Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>]

On 14-01-2014 11:59, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 01/14/2014 06:13 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>> On 13-01-2014 21:09, Ryan Arnold wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Adhemerval Zanella
>>> <azanella@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>> The IFUNC selector for gettimeofday runs before _libc_vdso_platform_setup where
>>>> __vdso_gettimeofday is set. The selector then sets __gettimeofday (the internal
>>>> version used within GLIBC) to use the system call version instead of the vDSO one.
>>>> This patch changes the check if vDSO is available to get its value directly
>>>> instead of rely on __vdso_gettimeofday.
>>>>
>>>> This patch changes it by getting the vDSO value directly. This is intended to be
>>>> applied on top of 'PowerPC: Fix ftime gettimeofday internal call returning bogus'.
>>>>
>>>> Tested on PPC64 and PPC32.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> 2014-01-13  Adhemerval Zanella  <azanella@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>
>>>>         [BZ#16431]
>>>>         * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/gettimeofday.c (__gettimeofday):
>>>>         Adjust the vDSO correctly for internal calls.
>>>>         * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/powerpc/time.c (time): Likewise.
>>>>
>>> Did the testcase used to discover the bug from
>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16430 make it into the
>>> tree?
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>> GLIBC does not have a similar testcase and I think it is not usual to add testcase
>> in code freeze.
> We should always be adding a regression test to any bug we fix.
>
> The code freeze is meant to prevent new destabilizing features
> from being added.
>
> You shouldn't add a test that is an expected fail though.
>
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
>
Indeed and I was meant to add a testcase after the code freeze. However, if it were consensus
I will work on adding a testcase (although the 16430 testcase it not really stressing this issue).