Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200225073731.465270-1-avagin@gmail.com> <1c1ab662-5475-9d8b-038b-8411b060202a@arm.com>
 <CANaxB-xUYOrVnfLPRYVBiASzCH89sZkD6vTdy8EFjT16ZJhLfg@mail.gmail.com> <1d9c4c56-af16-e54f-08ca-76c6570b2d53@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <1d9c4c56-af16-e54f-08ca-76c6570b2d53@arm.com>
From:   Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 09:14:43 -0700
Message-ID: <CANaxB-w+_4BUOYb-5+w1xBPoZGOzBh-LYOFCY-WSysgbAAcn_w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] arm64: add the time namespace support
To:     Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 2:02 AM Vincenzo Frascino
<vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrei,
>
> On 4/11/20 8:33 AM, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:23 AM Vincenzo Frascino
> > <vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.

I have sent this fix: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/15/72

>
> Are you planning as well to rebase this set?

What is the right tree to rebase on?

Thanks,
Andrei