Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-127051-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Sagi Maimon <maimon.sagi@gmail.com>
Cc: richardcochran@gmail.com, luto@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
 bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
 arnd@arndb.de, geert@linux-m68k.org, peterz@infradead.org,
 hannes@cmpxchg.org, sohil.mehta@intel.com, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com,
 nphamcs@gmail.com, palmer@sifive.com, keescook@chromium.org,
 legion@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, mszeredi@redhat.com,
 casey@schaufler-ca.com, reibax@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net,
 brauner@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
 netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] posix-timers: add clock_compare system call
In-Reply-To: <CAMuE1bF9ioo39_08Eh26X4WOtnvJ1geJ=WRVt5DhU8gEbYJNdA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMuE1bHBky9NGP22PVHKdi2+WniwxiLSmMnwRM6wm36sU8W4jA@mail.gmail.com>
 <878r29hjds.ffs@tglx>
 <CAMuE1bF9ioo39_08Eh26X4WOtnvJ1geJ=WRVt5DhU8gEbYJNdA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 22:46:10 +0200
Message-ID: <87o7asdd65.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sagi!

On Thu, Mar 28 2024 at 17:40, Sagi Maimon wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 2:38=E2=80=AFAM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.=
de> wrote:
>> On top this needs an analyis whether any of the gettimex64()
>> implementations does something special instead of invoking the
>> ptp_read_system_prets() and ptp_read_system_postts() helpers as close as
>> possible to the PCH readout, but that's not rocket science either. It's
>> just 21 callbacks to look at.
>>
> I like your suggestion, thanks!
> it is what our user space needs from the kernel and with minimum kernel c=
hanges.
> I will write it, test it and upload it with your permission (it is you
> idea after all).

You don't need permission. I made a suggestion and when you are doing the
work I'm not in a position to veto posting it. We have an explicit tag
for that 'Suggested-by:', which only says that someone suggested it to
you, but then you went and implemented it, made sure it works etc.

>> It might also require a new set of variant '3' IOTCLS to make that flag
>> field work, but that's not going to make the change more complex and
>> it's an exercise left to the experts of that IOCTL interface.
>>
> I think that I understand your meaning.
> There is a backward compatibility problem here.
>
> Existing user space application using PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED ioctl
> won't have any problems because of the "extoff->rsv[0] ||
> extoff->rsv[1] || extoff->rsv[2]" test, but what about all old user
> space applications using: PTP_SYS_OFFSET ?

So if there is a backwards compability issue with PTP_SYS_OFFSET2, then
you need to introduce PTP_SYS_OFFSET3. The PTP_SYS_*2 variants were
introduced to avoid backwards compatibility issues as well, but
unfortunately that did not address the reserved fields problem for
PTP_SYS_OFFSET2. PTP_SYS_OFFSET_EXTENDED2 should just work, but maybe
the PTP maintainers want a full extension to '3'. Either way is fine.

Thanks,

        tglx