Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 04:30:21PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > I don't think the driver changes are significant enough to warrant a ACK > from individual driver maintainers. > > Yours would be welcome though. ;-) Acked-by: Richard Cochran > Then I'll resend the

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 04:30:21PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > I don't think the driver changes are significant enough to warrant a ACK > from individual driver maintainers. > > Yours would be welcome though. ;-) Acked-by: Richard Cochran > Then I'll resend the whole thing to John as a

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:49:08PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Who should merge this patch? > > John, I guess. Or do we need acks from the driver maintainers? In > that case, please post to netdev, and then davem can merge it. I don't think

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:49:08PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Who should merge this patch? > > John, I guess. Or do we need acks from the driver maintainers? In > that case, please post to netdev, and then davem can merge it. I don't think

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:49:08PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Who should merge this patch? John, I guess. Or do we need acks from the driver maintainers? In that case, please post to netdev, and then davem can merge it. Thanks, Richard

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 02:49:08PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Who should merge this patch? John, I guess. Or do we need acks from the driver maintainers? In that case, please post to netdev, and then davem can merge it. Thanks, Richard

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:54:58PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > +config PTP_1588_CLOCK_DEFAULT > > > > + tristate > > > > > > I see what this option is doing, but I wonder about the name > > > "DEFAULT". In what sense is this a default?

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:54:58PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > +config PTP_1588_CLOCK_DEFAULT > > > > + tristate > > > > > > I see what this option is doing, but I wonder about the name > > > "DEFAULT". In what sense is this a default?

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:54:58PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > +config PTP_1588_CLOCK_DEFAULT > > > + tristate > > > > I see what this option is doing, but I wonder about the name > > "DEFAULT". In what sense is this a default? > > It provides the default answer for when the

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:54:58PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > +config PTP_1588_CLOCK_DEFAULT > > > + tristate > > > > I see what this option is doing, but I wonder about the name > > "DEFAULT". In what sense is this a default? > > It provides the default answer for when the

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:57:58PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH] ptp_clock: allow for it to be optional > > > > In order to break the hard dependency between the PTP clock subsystem and > > ethernet drivers capable of being clock

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:57:58PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Subject: [PATCH] ptp_clock: allow for it to be optional > > > > In order to break the hard dependency between the PTP clock subsystem and > > ethernet drivers capable of being clock

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:57:58PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] ptp_clock: allow for it to be optional > > In order to break the hard dependency between the PTP clock subsystem and > ethernet drivers capable of being clock providers, this patch provides > simple PTP stub

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:57:58PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Subject: [PATCH] ptp_clock: allow for it to be optional > > In order to break the hard dependency between the PTP clock subsystem and > ethernet drivers capable of being clock providers, this patch provides > simple PTP stub

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:56:49PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > I suspect there is more of a case for having net drivers _without_ ptp > > > support. This could be implemented with a ptp_clock_register() stub > > > returning NULL when ptp is

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:56:49PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > I suspect there is more of a case for having net drivers _without_ ptp > > > support. This could be implemented with a ptp_clock_register() stub > > > returning NULL when ptp is

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

Hi Nicolas, [auto build test WARNING on linus/master] [also build test WARNING on v4.8-rc6 next-20160916] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) to

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

Hi Nicolas, [auto build test WARNING on linus/master] [also build test WARNING on v4.8-rc6 next-20160916] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) to

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:56:49PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > I suspect there is more of a case for having net drivers _without_ ptp > > support. This could be implemented with a ptp_clock_register() stub > > returning NULL when ptp is not configured. I didn't look at most > > drivers

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:56:49PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > I suspect there is more of a case for having net drivers _without_ ptp > > support. This could be implemented with a ptp_clock_register() stub > > returning NULL when ptp is not configured. I didn't look at most > > drivers

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:35:28PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:07:24PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > > > This doesn't look too bad. > > > > > > I

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:35:28PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:07:24PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > > > This doesn't look too bad. > > > > > > I

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:07:24PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > > This doesn't look too bad. > > > > I disagree. It looks ugly. If tinification means sprinkling more and > > more

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:07:24PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > > This doesn't look too bad. > > > > I disagree. It looks ugly. If tinification means sprinkling more and > > more

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > This doesn't look too bad. Actually, it is worse than ugly. It is a disaster. With this change, registration will succeed and MAC drivers will happily report the PTP devices in 'ethtool -T', but there won't be anything behind them.

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > This doesn't look too bad. Actually, it is worse than ugly. It is a disaster. With this change, registration will succeed and MAC drivers will happily report the PTP devices in 'ethtool -T', but there won't be anything behind them.

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:07:24PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > This doesn't look too bad. > > I disagree. It looks ugly. If tinification means sprinkling more and > more of these conditionals all over the place, then it is

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:07:24PM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > This doesn't look too bad. > > I disagree. It looks ugly. If tinification means sprinkling more and > more of these conditionals all over the place, then it is

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > This doesn't look too bad. I disagree. It looks ugly. If tinification means sprinkling more and more of these conditionals all over the place, then it is going to be a tough sell. > Richard: Your thoughts? We decided to have MAC

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:58:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > This doesn't look too bad. I disagree. It looks ugly. If tinification means sprinkling more and more of these conditionals all over the place, then it is going to be a tough sell. > Richard: Your thoughts? We decided to have MAC

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Nicolas Pitre >> wrote: >> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Nicolas Pitre >> wrote: >> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre >> >> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 15

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Nicolas Pitre > wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre > >> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016,

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Nicolas Pitre > wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre > >> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > >> > > >> >> > diff --git

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre >> wrote: >> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: >> > >> >> > diff --git

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre >> wrote: >> > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: >> > >> >> > diff --git a/kernel/time/Kconfig b/kernel/time/Kconfig >> >> > index

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre > wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > > > >> > diff --git a/kernel/time/Kconfig b/kernel/time/Kconfig > >> > index 62824f2fe4..62504a2c9f 100644 > >> > ---

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre > wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > > > >> > diff --git a/kernel/time/Kconfig b/kernel/time/Kconfig > >> > index 62824f2fe4..62504a2c9f 100644 > >> > --- a/kernel/time/Kconfig > >> > +++

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > >> > diff --git a/kernel/time/Kconfig b/kernel/time/Kconfig >> > index 62824f2fe4..62504a2c9f 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/time/Kconfig >> > +++ b/kernel/time/Kconfig >> > @@

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > >> > diff --git a/kernel/time/Kconfig b/kernel/time/Kconfig >> > index 62824f2fe4..62504a2c9f 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/time/Kconfig >> > +++ b/kernel/time/Kconfig >> > @@ -195,3 +195,21 @@ config

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/time/Kconfig b/kernel/time/Kconfig > > index 62824f2fe4..62504a2c9f 100644 > > --- a/kernel/time/Kconfig > > +++ b/kernel/time/Kconfig > > @@ -195,3 +195,21 @@ config HIGH_RES_TIMERS > > > > endmenu > > endif > > + > > +config

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/time/Kconfig b/kernel/time/Kconfig > > index 62824f2fe4..62504a2c9f 100644 > > --- a/kernel/time/Kconfig > > +++ b/kernel/time/Kconfig > > @@ -195,3 +195,21 @@ config HIGH_RES_TIMERS > > > > endmenu > > endif > > + > > +config

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

> diff --git a/kernel/time/Kconfig b/kernel/time/Kconfig > index 62824f2fe4..62504a2c9f 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/Kconfig > +++ b/kernel/time/Kconfig > @@ -195,3 +195,21 @@ config HIGH_RES_TIMERS > > endmenu > endif > + > +config POSIX_TIMERS > + bool "Posix Clocks & timers" if EMBEDDED >

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

> diff --git a/kernel/time/Kconfig b/kernel/time/Kconfig > index 62824f2fe4..62504a2c9f 100644 > --- a/kernel/time/Kconfig > +++ b/kernel/time/Kconfig > @@ -195,3 +195,21 @@ config HIGH_RES_TIMERS > > endmenu > endif > + > +config POSIX_TIMERS > + bool "Posix Clocks & timers" if EMBEDDED >

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Nicolas Pitre > wrote: > > Many embedded systems typically don't need them. This removes about > > 22KB from the kernel binary size on ARM when configured out. > > > > Corresponding syscalls

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, John Stultz wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Nicolas Pitre > wrote: > > Many embedded systems typically don't need them. This removes about > > 22KB from the kernel binary size on ARM when configured out. > > > > Corresponding syscalls are routed to a stub logging

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Many embedded systems typically don't need them. This removes about > 22KB from the kernel binary size on ARM when configured out. > > Corresponding syscalls are routed to a stub logging the attempt to > use those

Re: [PATCH v3) posix-timers: make it configurable

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Many embedded systems typically don't need them. This removes about > 22KB from the kernel binary size on ARM when configured out. > > Corresponding syscalls are routed to a stub logging the attempt to > use those syscalls which should be