Re: [PATCH V9 00/21] C-SKY(csky) Linux Kernel Port

[Guo Ren]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:36:45AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:11 AM Guo Ren <ren_guo@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
Ok.
 
> 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.
Thx for the tips, we'll consider musl in the future.

Best Regards
 Guo Ren