Sagi!
On Thu, Mar 28 2024 at 17:40, Sagi Maimon wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2024 at 2:38 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 changes.
> 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
