Patch review status for 64-bit time_t patches.

Patch review status for 64-bit time_t patches.

[Carlos O'Donell]

Adhemerval, Lukasz,

I'm at ~6/25 patches reviewed. I started not by reviewing but by building additional
glibc packages for Fedora Rawhide and then testing in Rawhide.

Testing looks good in Fedora Rawhide on top of Florian's recent merge in of the
most recent development changes.

I'll continue reviewing these as discussed in order to ensure we can merge them
in a timely fashion.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Patch review status for 64-bit time_t patches.

[Lukasz Majewski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 794 bytes --]

Hi Carlos.

> Adhemerval, Lukasz,
> 
> I'm at ~6/25 patches reviewed. I started not by reviewing but by
> building additional glibc packages for Fedora Rawhide and then
> testing in Rawhide.
> 
> Testing looks good in Fedora Rawhide on top of Florian's recent merge
> in of the most recent development changes.
> 
> I'll continue reviewing these as discussed in order to ensure we can
> merge them in a timely fashion.
> 

Great. Thanks for taking care of this issue.

I will keep you updated if I find some issues.

Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

--

DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@denx.de

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Patch review status for 64-bit time_t patches.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 5/27/21 5:46 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Adhemerval, Lukasz,
> 
> I'm at ~6/25 patches reviewed. I started not by reviewing but by building additional
> glibc packages for Fedora Rawhide and then testing in Rawhide.
> 
> Testing looks good in Fedora Rawhide on top of Florian's recent merge in of the
> most recent development changes.
> 
> I'll continue reviewing these as discussed in order to ensure we can merge them
> in a timely fashion.

Just a quick status update.

I'm at ~18/25 patches reviewed.

I had a somewhat long discussion with Adhemerval on IRC about the new dual-time
ABI and the dropping of the __glibc_reserved* entries form the public ABI. This
is OK for the new ABI, but we must be careful we don't ever define __USE_TIME_BITS64
for any existing 64-bit time_t ABIs since it would be an ABI regression.

I'm out of time today, but I'll come back tomorrow to try finish the reviews.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Patch review status for 64-bit time_t patches.

[Lukasz Majewski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1503 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

> On 5/27/21 5:46 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > Adhemerval, Lukasz,
> > 
> > I'm at ~6/25 patches reviewed. I started not by reviewing but by
> > building additional glibc packages for Fedora Rawhide and then
> > testing in Rawhide.
> > 
> > Testing looks good in Fedora Rawhide on top of Florian's recent
> > merge in of the most recent development changes.
> > 
> > I'll continue reviewing these as discussed in order to ensure we
> > can merge them in a timely fashion.  
> 
> Just a quick status update.
> 
> I'm at ~18/25 patches reviewed.

Thanks for the update.

> 
> I had a somewhat long discussion with Adhemerval on IRC about the new
> dual-time ABI and the dropping of the __glibc_reserved* entries form
> the public ABI. This is OK for the new ABI, but we must be careful we
> don't ever define __USE_TIME_BITS64 for any existing 64-bit time_t
> ABIs since it would be an ABI regression.

I do agree with Adhemerval (as he stated it on the IRC), that
__USE_TIME_BITS64 is _only_ defined when __TIMESIZE != 64

It looks like we are safe here...

> 
> I'm out of time today, but I'll come back tomorrow to try finish the
> reviews.
> 

Great. Thanks for the comprehensive review.

Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

--

DENX Software Engineering GmbH,      Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-59 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: lukma@denx.de

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: Patch review status for 64-bit time_t patches.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 5/31/21 5:09 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 5/27/21 5:46 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Adhemerval, Lukasz,
>>
>> I'm at ~6/25 patches reviewed. I started not by reviewing but by building additional
>> glibc packages for Fedora Rawhide and then testing in Rawhide.
>>
>> Testing looks good in Fedora Rawhide on top of Florian's recent merge in of the
>> most recent development changes.
>>
>> I'll continue reviewing these as discussed in order to ensure we can merge them
>> in a timely fashion.
> 
> Just a quick status update.
> 
> I'm at ~18/25 patches reviewed.
> 
> I had a somewhat long discussion with Adhemerval on IRC about the new dual-time
> ABI and the dropping of the __glibc_reserved* entries form the public ABI. This
> is OK for the new ABI, but we must be careful we don't ever define __USE_TIME_BITS64
> for any existing 64-bit time_t ABIs since it would be an ABI regression.
> 
> I'm out of time today, but I'll come back tomorrow to try finish the reviews.
 
I'm at ~21/25 patches reviewed.

I went back over the sysvipc ABI again looking to see if I could make it match
up by putting back the reserved structure members to match the kernel ABI and
I could. 

I'm going to recommend we change to match the kernel ABI from a legacy perspective.

Four more patches to go.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Patch review status for 64-bit time_t patches.

[Adhemerval Zanella]

On 03/06/2021 00:56, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 5/31/21 5:09 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On 5/27/21 5:46 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> Adhemerval, Lukasz,
>>>
>>> I'm at ~6/25 patches reviewed. I started not by reviewing but by building additional
>>> glibc packages for Fedora Rawhide and then testing in Rawhide.
>>>
>>> Testing looks good in Fedora Rawhide on top of Florian's recent merge in of the
>>> most recent development changes.
>>>
>>> I'll continue reviewing these as discussed in order to ensure we can merge them
>>> in a timely fashion.
>>
>> Just a quick status update.
>>
>> I'm at ~18/25 patches reviewed.
>>
>> I had a somewhat long discussion with Adhemerval on IRC about the new dual-time
>> ABI and the dropping of the __glibc_reserved* entries form the public ABI. This
>> is OK for the new ABI, but we must be careful we don't ever define __USE_TIME_BITS64
>> for any existing 64-bit time_t ABIs since it would be an ABI regression.
>>
>> I'm out of time today, but I'll come back tomorrow to try finish the reviews.
>  
> I'm at ~21/25 patches reviewed.
> 
> I went back over the sysvipc ABI again looking to see if I could make it match
> up by putting back the reserved structure members to match the kernel ABI and
> I could. 
> 
> I'm going to recommend we change to match the kernel ABI from a legacy perspective.

Hi Carlos,

I tried to follow your suggestion here and although feasible, it would required
to provide a special struct_msqid64_ds_helper.h (and other similar sysvipc 
headers) for some specific architectures: arm, mips (all abis), and s390.

This is due the special alignment requirement of changing the fields with
__time_t to __time64. For instance, with even the extra two reserved fields
for 'msqid_ds', the size increases from 88 to 96 on arm.

And these extra arch-specific definitions is one thing I would like to
avoid. As I commented with you on IRC, the sysvipc is really an legacy API
and I don't expect the kernel to provide new control mechanism (that
would require us to extend the control structures.