Received: by 2002:a25:1985:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id 127csp515535ybz; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:08:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIZVueLVKu0pYBCb842OAIbJe7xkJi1RBZD7KiLQhz09ep4RrbzzkFLVNWmH4JfBD/73Rbo X-Received: by 2002:aa7:d7c1:: with SMTP id e1mr13366655eds.8.1586981280589; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:08:00 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1586981280; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=gc2XzL5oVCHgO99nqQf0ICHSo0JC+rmdrwq/f6k10Th7G8hx1BVTvv4gTv6mLaqQWO fAMrfK8ZPZx445iBPbdiTPJcWSPn8aOhTwwC26lemJ2Lz7vTr6oeaOu/INkPtZckhaoS su5w7VYvYQCugbaOf7O2mTZtZrOqlhiylEQ+syh8FI1RD0FKTonSt6pjWKu85EtNAYm0 Mzze/LGYvDj2Ld14ycqGO8wCyNGHnFmBt0un66jvtmAHW4QfaXgNGWFWLyzpjesG31wQ tC3OTNI1IFT2TJYaCHGz4buIfiV/q0rlegvVi9lY+HV181JCuHtByXy9Jv2E9YCZmwo8 HWGg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=kZmqg6xZ2ndinDN9n+vzDCV1K7ED+fU/lipJGCmOm9I=; b=seMkXSxiY5bBRZaAdiSLEVzcnlmQsxJTEmNejn08aIipwXtXP6+YfqJ1DvLgUf6qPy 4XbjZYoO4u0VuxwFAoCc3aeWsh9eFAjywzRj1X2teyX82hMsD8x4FfgAeKhIcyBh8wtw yC1dEi2N1H9wgit/oXCDHcytWgtHvJUKuBHZ5CLSCgt/bxK0avl/O4VNsmnBmvrSR8rv oppWkFhvr/MFyCJ9Hlbvaaql08hJ/MKuaOW/MUOX6UpIDrieiI/L3yqDU7NW+7CdEfWm y/A9dR/hbO6O1unayQvLH2IEBrlrLWUZG50ZqvMIYLQuVEWo9dyVB3lXkfDocFKPXBQO i1ww== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id cy6si1306155edb.41.2020.04.15.13.07.32; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2437345AbgDNJCI (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 14 Apr 2020 05:02:08 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:51338 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2437340AbgDNJCG (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2020 05:02:06 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7F21FB; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 02:02:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.172] (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C9703F6C4; Tue, 14 Apr 2020 02:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: add the time namespace support To: Andrei Vagin Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Dmitry Safonov References: <20200225073731.465270-1-avagin@gmail.com> <1c1ab662-5475-9d8b-038b-8411b060202a@arm.com> From: Vincenzo Frascino Message-ID: <1d9c4c56-af16-e54f-08ca-76c6570b2d53@arm.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 10:02:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrei, On 4/11/20 8:33 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:23 AM Vincenzo Frascino > wrote: >> >> Hi Andrei, >> [...] >> Sorry for the delay, I completed this morning the review of your patches and I >> do not have anymore comments on them. Thank you for making the effort and >> bringing the time namespace support to arm64. > > Thank you for the review of these patches. > >> >> I have though a question on something I encountered during the testing of the >> patches: I noticed that all the tests related to CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM fail on >> arm64 (please find the results below the scissors). Is this expected? > > static int alarm_clock_get_timespec(clockid_t which_clock, struct > timespec64 *tp) > { > struct alarm_base *base = &alarm_bases[clock2alarm(which_clock)]; > > if (!alarmtimer_get_rtcdev()) > return -EINVAL; > > It is probably that you get EINVAL from here ^^^. I will send a > separate patch to handle this case in tests properly. > This makes sense :) Please let me know when you post the fix so I can test it again. Are you planning as well to rebase this set? > Thanks, > Andrei > -- Regards, Vincenzo