lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V9 00/21] C-SKY(csky) Linux Kernel Port
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:11 AM Guo Ren <ren_guo@c-sky.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 05:58:46PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:58 AM Guo Ren <ren_guo@c-sky.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the 9th version patchset to add the Linux kernel port for
> > > C-SKY(csky) based on linux-4.19-rc3.
> > >
> > > There are only a few changes between V8 patchset. Hope it could be
> > > merged into linux-4.20 and I'm very grateful for any help.
> >
> > I've gone through the entire series once more and saw no show-stoppers.
> > The last patch looked like it introduced a bug, but with that one dropped,
> > I'm happy for the architecture to get merged, unless anyone else
> > has any last-minute concerns. (Alternatively, explain why I'm wrong
> > and the code works correctly, of course).
> Ok and thx for the job of csky subsystem.
>
> >
> > I'd appreciate having someone else take another look at the signal
> > handling code, the atomics, and the DT bindings and provide another
> > Ack for those.
> >
> > The remaining open question is about the 32-bit time_t interfaces.
> > With 4.20, I did not manage to get the required system calls in place
> > for using 64-bit time_t in a new architecture, so you will at least
> > start out using 32-bit time_t and likely have to keep supporting
> > that going forward, unless we decide to break the ABI here later
> > on .This is something we normally don't do, but we might make
> > an exception here, under the assumption that there are no
> > existing users with the ABI. We can debate that once we get there.
> We support uclibc-ng and glibc.
>
> 1. For uclibc-ng, linux-4.20 could run with it.
>
> 2. For glibc, Maybe we could support 32-bit + 64-bit time_t with
> KERNEL_VERSION, or just only 64-bit then linux-4.20 couldn't work with
> the csky first glibc release.

Yes, it is always an option to make glibc more restrictive than the kernel.
We could also just make it a configuration option in the kernel whether
the system calls are provided, so they don't use memory for the
implementation.

You will probably want musl support at some point. musl-1.x always
uses 32-bit time_t today, but musl-2.x will use the 64-bit interfaces,
so just waiting a bit will probably make it work out for you.

Arnd

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-18 10:38    [W:0.059 / U:13.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site