Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0exO_uFUhhOL1FVgToe7_FEbYrCOvyAXSgZRfVqY4M+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20180423080512.1614520-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180427193204.GD23874@flask>
 <CAK8P3a0exO_uFUhhOL1FVgToe7_FEbYrCOvyAXSgZRfVqY4M+w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 21:58:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2m06oo-H2pCKh=TJAhVYkKSs3kQCuSiBTKwoZVUu0xpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RESEND] KVM: x86: use timespec64 for KVM_HC_CLOCK_PAIRING
To:     =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 9:32 PM, Radim Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99 <rkrcmar@red=
hat.com> wrote:
>> 2018-04-23 10:04+0200, Arnd Bergmann:
>>> The hypercall was added using a struct timespec based implementation,
>>> but we should not use timespec in new code.
>>>
>>> This changes it to timespec64. There is no functional change
>>> here since the implementation is only used in 64-bit kernels
>>> that use the same definition for timespec and timespec64.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 55dd00a73a51 ("KVM: x86: add KVM_HC_CLOCK_PAIRING hypercall")
>>
>> (Removed the "Fixes:" tag as it doesn't really change behavior.)
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>> ---
>>> I originally sent this in October, but got no reply. The patch
>>> is still required for the overall cleanup of 'timespec' uses
>>> in the kernel, please apply.
>>
>> Queued now, thanks!
>>
>> Anything we need to do for the x86_platform_ops switch?
>
> I think it's on me to resend what I have. That patch is one of the few
> remaining ones in my backlog for y2038 after having sent out
> some 50 other patches (some new, some old).
>
> It has been in my testing tree since October though and not shown
> any regressions for a while (I had to do one modification after
> Jailhouse got merged), so I'll just send it out now.

I remember the problem now, that patch relied on another
one that turned out to be too ugly:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10016923/

I still had that as part of my own test builds, as the one that
we do want fails without it. However, one other patch I
sent today ("timekeeping: Remove timespec64 hack")
should provide a better path and let me completely
avoid that hack. I'll give that a try now and send the
modified x86_platform_ops patch.

       Arnd